1
   

Why is the theory of evolution questionable?

 
 
sword
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:27 pm
@sword,
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:47 pm
@sword,
Ah, the old "a famous scientist believed in God - therefore those who respect science ought to respect that" canard.

I would refute it thus:

What are your thoughts on Newton's ideas about alchemy?

If you don't respect them - how does it follow on that I should respect his thoughts on theology?

Besides, evolution and belief in god are not inimicable.

If the pope can reconcile them both so can you, or I (if I chose to do so).
0 Replies
 
sword
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:03 pm
@sword,
The theory of the evolution postulating that God does not exist and that everything is the product of chance and time, has undressed many human beings of the ethical or moral sense that comes from the religion. For that reason it is that self-centred philosophies like those from Nietszche that thinking himself a superman complaining of the spiritual principles finished in madness, philosophies that even so are used by politicians or ideologists, or tyrants to justify their interests. For example, the intellectuals of the old British empire, contemporary with Darwin, used to even justify their dominion on other peoples and racism being based on the ideal of the "survival of the fittest". And in the past Eastern Europe it was postulated that dialectics or the evolution of history would bring the ideal society but as we know that never happened. Hitler himself, inspired by the evolutionist and self-centred ideas of Nietzsche and Darwin, got to think himself to be a superman with the right to exterminate other human beings in the cruelest way that may be conceived.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:24 pm
@sword,
sword;121715 wrote:
The theory of the evolution postulating that God does not exist...
I'd be very interested to see a scientific publication on evolution that addresses the existence of God.

sword;121715 wrote:
has undressed many human beings of the ethical or moral sense that comes from the religion
Are you asking to be reminded of atrocities that happen in religion's name?

sword;121715 wrote:
the intellectuals of the old British empire, contemporary with Darwin, used to even justify their dominion on other peoples and racism being based on the ideal of the "survival of the fittest".
Funny then that the slave trade was abolished in England in 1807 and Darwin was born in 1809.

Not that England deserves any blue ribbons for its colonial policies later on, but surely you can't blame Darwin when England's entire history of slavery happened before he was even born to begin with.

sword;121715 wrote:
Hitler himself, inspired by the evolutionist and self-centred ideas of Nietzsche and Darwin, got to think himself to be a superman with the right to exterminate other human beings in the cruelest way that may be conceived.
Would you like a list of ordained clergy who were complicit in the Holocaust?

The fact of the matter is that there were plenty of clergy who hated Jews too. They came to their hatred of Jews from a different vantage point than Hitler, but they came to the same conclusion in the end.

Oh, by the way, if you think that Darwin had much to do with Hitler's views towards the Jews, then I'd suggest you take a moment to read where Hitler writes exactly where his antisemitism came from in Mein Kampf.
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 07:12 am
@sword,
We move on from associating scientists with religion to Godwin's Law!!!

Which one of the following two books were banned by the Nazis?

1) On the Origin of Species.
2) The Bible.

The answer might surprise people who thought Darwin was held up by Hitler as some sort of inspiration.

As an aside - he also apparently thought little of Nietzsche, preferring Shopenhauer's 'triumph of the will'. Apparently he never read Nietzsche - and simply adopted ubermensch because of it's superficial connotations.

Nazi philosophers might have used vulgar understandings of Darwin or Nietzche to prop up their justifications (though they still burned Darwin's books). However, Hitler himself was a christian creationist and this is borne out of many speeches he made and the book and articles he wrote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCNftnJZX1Y
In my veiw he was also a paranoid madman - so why he is held up a paragon of any ideology is beyond me. Are we to judge catholicism by Hitler or heathen-burning medeival Popes? Are we to judge orthodox christianity by Ivan the Terrible?

No.

So let's stop invoking Hitler every time we want to smear an ideology* - especially one he expressly disavowed and banned.

*Nazism aside, natch.
sword
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 09:17 pm
@sword,
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 09:22 pm
@sword,
sword;121909 wrote:
Evolution means that human nature is malleable.
So does free will.

So unless you're into "the devil made me do it", or you're into predestination a la 17th century Calvinism, then we're all malleable regardless of what various 19th century thinkers had to say on the subject.
0 Replies
 
memester
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 02:39 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;121755 wrote:
.

Nazi philosophers might have used vulgar understandings of Darwin or Nietzche to prop up their justifications (though they still burned Darwin's books). However, Hitler himself was a christian creationist
Quote:
I mainly post to remind myself/practice the real facts of the matter and - possibly - impress the facts upon an observer who isn't so far gone.


As always, we can check or we can take it from Dave. Here's a different kind of finding


Quote:

If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself.
- Adolf Hitler
In Adolf Hitler, Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper, translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, '14 October 1941', Secret Conversations
Quote:
The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science.



wiki on the understanding of the vulgar
Quote:






What is very plain is that Hitler and Darwin shared the same premise.
The difference being in the actions. Darwin stated dangers of allowing the inferior to reproduce, and yet he nodded to our human values as being important , possibly transcendent, so that we just have to bear the costs.
.
Hitler, on the other hand, seems to take the view that such softness, sympathy, and pity was not actually kindness, and not suitable for attaining the destiny of Man.

It is considered not ethically sound, to breed an animal such as a dog that is found to carry the factor for blindness at a young age. It's not really being so kind, either, to produce so many blind dogs - quite apart from the dissatisfaction and costs and grief given to the poor purchaser.
Now the only problem left is if we consider humans to be nothing more than fancy two legged fish which have gut sacks that turned to use for respiration. In that case we can cull mercilessly.


We can see struggles in modern society that bring out this problem.
In the framework of care for the mentally disabled, the municipality run homes allow intercourse between the residents.
Rights of the disabled are protected.
Parents of children under care there, are not permitted information on whether or not their child is being sexually molested. Only the child can tell the parent by volunteering it.
As you may guess, not that much information can be gained directly from someone who answers "Yeth, Tuethday" in reply to any question.

When it comes time to abort, or uphold the rights of the inmates again, it gets sticky, I suppose.

to Darwin, the social customs of the caucasian held this in check (perhaps enough). in that time.
Dr Down, anyone ?
Down Syndrome - Healthy Kids and Pediatrics - Information on Children's Health produced by doctors
Quote:
In great error, Langdon Down attributed the condition to a "reversion" to the "mongoloid race." He held that evolution had been reversed and there had been a sort of backslide from the superior Caucasian to the inferior Oriental race. Hence, the name Down syndrome smacks of racism.

The disorder was also once called mongolism, a term now considered perjorative, and to be avoided in English. (It is still used in some countries). Other names that have been used over the years include mongol, mongoloid, mongolian imbecile, mongoloid idiot, mongoloid deformity, Kalmuck idiocy, Tartar, unfinished child, Langdon-Down syndrome, Down's anomaly, and Down's deformity.

All of these names should, in our view, be jettisoned. The least controversial and most appropriate name for this syndrome may simply be what causes it: TRISOMY 21.


I would not presume to suppose the Nazis were not into sciences, did not have people who were highly sophisticated in approach to natural sciences, or that they were of vulgar understanding of science.

It's a vulgar understanding of science to think that our kinder medical experiments that do not allow the subject to die, are solid, compared to real studies where fatality may be occurring.

they might have tried to find out lethal dose by dosing. our researchers cannot do that directly.
they might have chosen to try impregnating a woman with chimp sperm, but we don't do that kind of thing

Eugenics is not a science. As it's commonly seen in groups, it's a practice which seeks to apply measures to attain a certain goal, and some science is funded ( somewhat selectively ) and results ( somewhat selectively ) used to justify actions by Eugenicists and the actions they urge government to take.

that being said, it's of interest if Scientists connect with the Eugenicists in professional capacity. Those might be considered of vulgar understanding or the unsophisticated ?
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 05:58 am
@memester,
memester;121941 wrote:
As always, we can check or we can take it from Dave.

:sarcastic:
Quote:
Here's a different kind of finding

Two quotes that say absolutely nothing about being inspired by Darwin. They cite science - yes. Darwin was not considered scientific by the Nazis - hence the reason for banning On the Origin of Species - explained under gaideline six of Die Bucherei:

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

The two examples you cite - dealing with science in general and noting that they didn't consider Darwin science - are weighed against umpteen quotes such as:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

In the Bible we find the text, 'That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.' This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day.
-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 10 April 1923

In the life of nations, what in the last resort decides questions is a kind of Judgment Court of God.... Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills.
-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 13 April 1923

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf

The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were .... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.
-Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavour to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren ), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of to-day.
-Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda

Ad nauseum.....
memester
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 09:00 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;121961 wrote:
:sarcastic:

Two quotes that say absolutely nothing about being inspired by Darwin. They cite science - yes.
Indeed they do not say anything about being inspired by Darwin, and I have not argued that they do.
I argue that the two men share a common premise.

I do not argue the Dave Allen attempt at misdirection.

I did not say Hitler was inspired by Darwin or was not.

However, the Dave Allen claim remains unsupported by the quotes, in that they do not show Hitler claiming to be a creationist.

Dave Allen's shaky reply about a claim I had not made, is telling, especially as we notice that his claim remains unsupported thus far.

No doubt people do have a curious capacity to hold seemingly conflicting beliefs, and Hitler sure seemed to have some.

So now Dave Allen can scurry about collecting more quotes in his bid. Politicians say all kinds of things, and so do the mad.

Dave Allen will convince himself well.

Let's compare Darwin and Hitler quotations though.

Darwin
Quote:
The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said.

Now this is extraordinary. Darwin is saying that there is great variation within race...i.e great difference between the the lowest ranking and highest ranking intelligence within the Caucasian race...but even more difference between Caucasian and Negro.

consider that, and the implications for the Negroid being seen as possibly a non human species. we can check highest and lowest IQ , and rough it out to "20" and "190", a difference of 170. We know it may be higher, or go higher yet.

Take that difference and see how average Caucasian, generously at 110 or 115 compares with a worm. More difference within the Caucasian race than between Caucasian and worm.

and yet the Negro, Darwin says, shows even greater difference from Caucasian than Caucasians do from each other.

we know what that means.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 09:03 am
@sword,
The Nazis cannot be boxed into a scientific viewpoint or a religious viewpoint. Hitler paid some lip service to the church because of political expediency, but I've read some scholarly articles that argue against him being genuine about it. Because of this I have always taken his (numerous) quotes about the church with a big grain of salt. That is not to argue that he had a specifically pro-"science" point of view either. To the contrary. He was an ideologue who openly rationalized his views in terms of both religion and science at various points, but probably did not really take either to heart. He hated the moral dictates of Christianity, particularly the admonition against killing. In this sense he was in fact taking a page from Nietzsche (though perhaps not directly) in that he was antagonistic to traditional western moral assumptions that had been incorporated by religion.

He most frequently referred to Jews in terms of a disease, describing them with metaphors like 'plague' and 'tuberculosis'. Goebbels did the same. At least rhetorically, it would seem that purification rather than anything religious or scientific was his theme.
memester
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 10:10 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;121974 wrote:
The Nazis cannot be boxed into a scientific viewpoint or a religious viewpoint. Hitler paid some lip service to the church because of political expediency, but I've read some scholarly articles that argue against him being genuine about it. Because of this I have always taken his (numerous) quotes about the church with a big grain of salt. That is not to argue that he had a specifically pro-"science" point of view either. To the contrary. He was an ideologue who openly rationalized his views in terms of both religion and science at various points, but probably did not really take either to heart. He hated the moral dictates of Christianity, particularly the admonition against killing. In this sense he was in fact taking a page from Nietzsche (though perhaps not directly) in that he was antagonistic to traditional western moral assumptions that had been incorporated by religion.

He most frequently referred to Jews in terms of a disease, describing them with metaphors like 'plague' and 'tuberculosis'. Goebbels did the same. At least rhetorically, it would seem that purification rather than anything religious or scientific was his theme.
I agree with that appraisal. I am not sure that Hitler did not actually entertain or indulge in religious ideas, perhaps spiritism, shamanistic beliefs, pantheism, ancestor worship, seances, heroic romantic messianic Aryan God/Son figures frolicking in the lupins...who knows with people who can melt other human beings into fat and yet weep for a sad song.
What he spoke must often have been purely for the purpose of gaining or not losing power.
0 Replies
 
sword
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 12:09 pm
@sword,
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 12:18 pm
@sword,
Sword -- I'm having trouble deciphering your overall thesis, except that you seem to have an idealization that is anti-modern. Can you demonstrate to us an "ideal" time in the history of humanity?
memester
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 12:58 pm
@Aedes,
One might suppose that Scientists in their work, are bound to adhere to their professional ethics - but not moral judgments.

That is, they are to report honestly on whatever results turn out to be, and try to explain. Their job is not, therefore, to decide if abortion is right.
If we say it's right, then they can ethically study and offer information on how to do it with least complications to "mother", and so on.

But we can have problems when scientists become activists and attempt to steer politicians and public.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 01:58 pm
@sword,
Abortion and euthanasia are hardly modern phenomena.

And the thing I like the most about postmodernism is that it's sort of a check and balance on the hubris of progress. There is something self-critical in postmodernism.
memester
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 03:01 pm
@Aedes,
Indeed, and ancient Hindus might have bemoaned the state of affairs in their time, the mating of high caste into low ( sibling matings might be preferred).
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 05:36 am
@memester,
memester;121972 wrote:
However, the Dave Allen claim remains unsupported by the quotes, in that they do not show Hitler claiming to be a creationist.

Well, the video I posted gave a few, I'd have thought that supported my angle. What about all that "the fox is always a fox" stuff, his rejection of monism, and so on?

Though I didn't claim myself that he was a creationist - I just recommend a video that lays out that case.

My point was to show that he disavowed and banned Darwin whilst citing God all the time.

Whilst we can suppose this was a political position - the evidence stacks up to the contrary. Of all the various justifications cited by the Nazis - Darwin and his ideas are notable by their apparent absence.

"Scurry about" ... "shaky" .. again with the needless belittling remarks and waiving of context. Grow up.
memester
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 08:17 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;122128 wrote:
Well, the video I posted gave a few, I'd have thought that supported my angle. What about all that "the fox is always a fox" stuff, his rejection of monism, and so on?
ah,you have NOTHING.
Quote:

Though I didn't claim myself that he was a creationist
this sure smells like a bold faced lie.[/quote]earlier said
Quote:
However, Hitler himself was a christian creationist
Yes, it sure does seem to be a Dave Allen bold faced lie

Quote:


"Scurry about" ... "shaky" .. again with the needless belittling remarks and waiving of context. Grow up.
you've been calling me a troll, and it is a bit difficult to see anything but the utter dishonesty you offer.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 08:26 am
@memester,
memester;122133 wrote:
ah,you have NOTHING.

I don't see why I would need anything to defend a statement I didn't make.

But even if I had made the statement - which I didn't - I would not have nothing - given that a number of statements attributed to him outlining a creationist perspective exist.
Quote:
you've been calling me a troll, so it's a bit difficult to see anything but a dishonest person behind these remarks.

Nothing dishonest about it - You are a troll.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 03:12:10