26 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillThere are many theories of evolution and in Darwin's day there was wide agreement that it was an established phenomenon requiring a scientific explanation.
With me you don't have a whole lot of credibility to talk about what is "logically consistent" any more.
Nazism, Master Race, Survival of the Fittest, goes hand and hand with Darwin's Evolution. He may have believed that he heard the voice of Divine Providence as a youth. His rationalization for genocide was Darwinian. And his skill in captivating a ...[text shortened]... e he secured for his rise to power.
Don't waste your breath or time trying to deny it.
Darwin's was based on deep research and understanding of biology and his main task was not to present a theory of evolution, but to explain how it comes about. His proposal was natural selection, which he published just ahead of the same proposal from Wallace, who reached the same view independently as Darwin honestly acknowledged from the outset. The core of this theory was that evolution as such is not random - it favours changes that enhance the ability of a species to reproduce - but that is is not purpose driven and has no direction or end goal - no design in other words. It is utterly impossible to reconcile Darwin's views with a belief in the evolution of any master race whatever. Humans, tsetse files, blades of grass and frogs are each in their way surivors of evolution, heirs of a common ancestor and currently "fit." Humanity has no priviliged position and no inherent entitlement to prosper in the future, just because they have survived to this point in time. Fitness does not require a grading in terms of better or worse as implied by idiots.
Other theories were far more speculative and in particular, others tried to hammer together theories about human society with their own notions about evolution. Herbert Spencer was very influential. He harboured a Lamarckian and not a Darwinian belief about how it worked and envisaged both a physical, biological evolution and a social evolution that had an inherent tendency towards increasing complexity and perfection. Conveniently for a Victorian Englishman, he considered that evolution was taking the human species in a direction of Libertarianism and Laissez Faire. "Evolution can end only in the establishment of the greatest perfection and the most complete happiness.. " Far from being "Darwinian," Spencer was jealous to claim for himself the title of founder of evolution theory.
The range of second rate and worse writers who contributed their pet theories about evolution and its implications for humanity has been huge and in the early days especially - before social research as a methodology became at all established - all sorts of social movements pretended to a claim of scientific support. Inevitably, each fed into their social theories the prevailing ideology and a table spoon or two of scientific sounding jargon.
The German cult of the master race emerged from the Romantic Movement and was largely in opposition to, and not in accord with, anything resembling science. If anything, it came in reaction to the Napoleonic invasion and the prevailing claim of the French to represent the pinnacle of civilisation ( a problem they have not fully got over!). Herder and others pronounced that each nation had in itself the seeds of its own distinct civiisation rooted in its own folk history and it was time for Germany to discover its own unique soul and destiny. When combined with the increasingly dominant Prussian militarist culture, by which Germany was unified by force, the roots of German aggression and extreme nationalism were put in place, nurtured into fanaticism by the experience of the First World War and of the subsequent implosion of the Weimar Republic.
All of this is highly depressing and regrettable. None of it has the most remote bearing on the quiet biological researches of Charles Darwin nor the responsible scientific work that has followed in his path.
Any and every attempt to twist evolutionary theory into social theory is inherently flawed. Even when we can trace a historical or environmental basis for the "evolution" of social values and behaviours, we learn from that nothing whatever about how things ought to be. In this respect, the modern sociobiologists can again be recognised as social theorists masking their idological beliefs behind scientific jargon. In particular, they pass off as social science what are really "just-so-stories" about the behaviour of our distant ancestors. We are only slowly building some reasonable skills in our ability to research and evaluate both surviving and historical societies different to our own and discovering how weak are the prevailing delusions about the life of so called savages.
What we can learn about, however, is human emotions and feelings, which as Darwin demonstrated so well, we share very much in common with the animal kingdom around us. That does not diminish our value as humans. It enhances our empathy and respect for the creatures around us. When the video you cited refers to the notion that if humans are only animals, we will treat them also as mere economic units, that is actually not representing the way a biologist rthinks about animals but rather the way the Bible thinks about animals, which are allegedly there for our use and for no intrinsic purpose. The Bible does not teach respect for any creature (pace the Sermon on the Mount!).
Darwin was deeply moral and any decent biologist learns to be deeply moral in their attitude towards the living world. There is no comfort in Darwin for the likes of the Nazis.
Lots of breath - none of it wasted I am sure.
26 Apr 12
Originally posted by finneganYou can't be right until you get this evolution idea out of your head.
There are many theories of evolution and in Darwin's day there was wide agreement that it was an established phenomenon requiring a scientific explanation.
Darwin's was based on deep research and understanding of biology and his main task was not to present a theory of evolution, but to explain how it comes about. His proposal was natural selection, whi ...[text shortened]... Darwin for the likes of the Nazis.
Lots of breath - none of it wasted I am sure.
Living things do not evolve, they adapt. This is what Darwin saw and
termed natural selection. However, he did not know about DNA/RNA.
Originally posted by finneganAs a reasonable man I am willing to acknowledge that the historical roots of Nazism are more nuanced and complex than a simple opportunistic analysis could make.
There are many theories of evolution and in Darwin's day there was wide agreement that it was an established phenomenon requiring a scientific explanation.
Darwin's was based on deep research and understanding of biology and his main task was not to present a theory of evolution, but to explain how it comes about. His proposal was natural selection, whi Darwin for the likes of the Nazis.
Lots of breath - none of it wasted I am sure.
However, do not labor too much to distance Nazism from the seeds planted in the 20th century mind by Darwinism.
Darwin TITLED his book thus -
" The Origin of Species
By Means of Natural Selection
or the
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life "
I would consider it naive to think that Darwin's title did not have implied in it a rational for the emergence of race over race. And of course Adolf Hitler lept at the conception as a justification of Nazi "super - race" ambitions for the German people.
But your note is worth another careful reading. And I acknowledge that other factors also went into this evil brew.
Originally posted by jaywillIts amazing that after that excellent post by finnegan you can simply repeat your claim instead of giving a sincere apology for making such ridiculous claims then referring us to a despicable video.
As a reasonable man I am willing to acknowledge that the historical roots of Nazism are more nuanced and complex than a simple opportunistic analysis could make.
However, do not labor too much to distance Nazism from the seeds planted in the 20th century mind by Darwinism.
Even if you have a point, or think your claim is valid, you have to admit that the video you referred us to in defence of your claims contains despicable propaganda and gross inaccuracies and you should seek to distance yourself from it and appologize.
Your lack of integrity is not helping your cause.
26 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillwell, i managed to sit through about 10 minutes of that rubbish. he talked non-stop for 10 minutes but said nothing.
Scientist and Mathematician John Lennox speaks to
[b]Common Objections Athiests Make
My favorite - "God of the Gaps ?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVallWIA4G8&feature=related[/b]
if you want to defend any of the fallacy arguments brought up by lennox, you're welcome to articulate them in your own words and watch in amazement as they are torn down.
26 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillAs twhitehead has already correctly pointed out, you started the name calling.
I think you should work on your name calling and adhoms, you know: idiot - moron.
I know a good junior highschool boys room where you could get some juicy insults for your arguments, scribbled on the walls.
Do work on your name calling.
Anyway, back to my question:
how does social Darwinism logically/rationally follow from biological Darwinism?
-your silence says all.
Originally posted by humyDarwin's erroneous conclusions led many to believe God was not the
As twhitehead has already correctly pointed out, you started the name calling.
Anyway, back to my question:
how does social Darwinism logically/rationally follow from biological Darwinism?
-your silence says all.
creator of living things and that it just happened by accident. This
made it easy for many to dismiss the truths in the Holy Bible as not
relevant to modern man, since we do not have to be accountable to
God if he does not exist. Result: social Darwinism. Simple, huh?
26 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsLyell's geology demonstrated to many that the Earth is vastly more ancient than anything envisaged by literal readings of the Bible. As a result, many Biblical scholars offered alternative readings of the Bible - for example to get away from the literal assumption that each day of the creation was a mere 24 hour cycle. Since we no longer have to accept a 24 hour day, we have trouble deciding when to sleep. Result - insomnia and responding to illogical posts from RJHinds. Simple - huh?
Darwin's erroneous conclusions led many to believe God was not the
creator of living things and that it just happened by accident. This
made it easy for many to dismiss the truths in the Holy Bible as not
relevant to modern man, since we do not have to be accountable to
God if he does not exist. Result: social Darwinism. Simple, huh?
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIt is amusing though to hear that chatty old Irishman waffling away to no purpose and relishing the attention received. Oxford University has a long tradition of leaving its tenured professors to talk about whatever they feel like without intererence, even if - as in this case - it entails such a huge diversion from the expertise for which they were appointed. And guess what, there is a huge amount of money to be made - best selling books, talks on the American university circuit sponsored by creationist zealots. He is an entertainer and there is little content to what he offers. A discussion with Dawkins was summed up as follows:
well, i managed to sit through about 10 minutes of that rubbish. he talked non-stop for 10 minutes but said nothing.
if you want to defend any of the fallacy arguments brought up by lennox, you're welcome to articulate them in your own words and watch in amazement as they are torn down.
John Lennox: "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......blah"
Dawkins: "No."
For amusement though, take his opening gambit: Aunt Matilda bakes a cake. Many scientists analyse in exquisite detail its composition but it is impossible for science to explain why she baked the cake. I asked her and she baked it for Uncle Fred. No scientist could ever have discovered this by analysing the composition of the cake. QED
Well the appropriate science to use for that question is determined by the reason for the investigation. Astronomy is probably ruled out. Various social scientists might have a reason to investigate the question and a very likely approach would be the well known interview technique - they would ask her. That is often a perfectly good scientific method but not always so. Let us envisage a scenario in which she does not wish to admit baking the cake. A forensic scientist - using chemistry for example - might then seek to demonstrate that it was indeed she who baked it. Imagine also that the cake poisoned uncle Fred. It might be necessary to show that this was not accidental and to discover a motive, in the face of her refusal to admit this or to assist. Or having established by forensic science that she baked the cake with poison, in the absence of a clear financial motive or whatever, it may be that a psychiatrist was employed to try to understand better what was her state of mind and what underlying mental state brought her to this act. The psychiatrist might also wonder if she was aware of her actions, or in control of her mind, or whatever. Of course, even in a more benign scenario, she might also have a poor understanding of why she baked the cake for Uncle Fred. An anthropologist might relate the act to a social rituel or traditional purpose. It might be part of a formal process (a birthday, where there is a tradition of baking birthday cakes for example). A feminist might investigate Aunt Mathilda's role in the family structure and her need to establish that role in socially acepted terms by baking cakes for her brother, the unpleasant Uncle Fred. In yet another scenario, Aunt Mathilda might ask a psychotherapist to work with her to understand what impulse it is that drives her to make so many bloody cakes for her relatives - why has she this drive to please other people for example? He might point out to her that she is continually baking unwanted cakes and passing them off on her unfortunate over-weight brother, who is too kind to decline. So her motive is not kindness but selfish. She just wants to bake and bake (for reasons to explore further of course) and that is the real underlying reason, not exposed by the superficial question of John Lennox but by the more pressing interrogation of science, never content with the simple answers. Now is there a baking obsession or a need to nurture her brother, compensating for poor parenting or an absent parent perhaps? Oh we must continue to ask questions and explore.
You know, depending on the reason for their interest, there are all sorts of scientific methods by which to investigate the burning question of why Aunt Mathilda baked a cake for Ucle Fred. The opening gambit is therefore a completely false assertion, which provides a poor building block for what follows (...on and on and on and ...)
This chatty little introduction is a simple and effective technique to manipulate an audience and to confuse and obscure the underlying logic of whatever shred of argument might be imagined to lie behind those sweet, lilting tones. It not only fails to support itself under scrutiny, but it also of course has no relevance whatever to the issues on which Jaywill was invited to defend his position.
Anyone using YouTube can find a never ending series of clips with which to pass the idle hours. It seems to me that it is a dishonest debating tactic on this forum to post such random clips, wasting the time of anyone willing to actually play the clip and try to make sense of its relevance. If you have a contribution to make, then type it out in your own words and see if you actually can string together a coherent opinion about which others might then wish to have a conversation. (A bit of proof reading would also be courteous but that's incidental).
Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin's erroneous conclusions led many to believe God was not the
creator of living things and that it just happened by accident. This
made it easy for many to dismiss the truths in the Holy Bible as not
relevant to modern man, since we do not have to be accountable to
God if he does not exist. Result: social Darwinism. Simple, huh?
and that it just happened by accident.
how many times must I and others point this out to you moron:
EVOLUTION IS NOT AN ACCIDENT
Darwin never believed that evolution is an accident nor claimed any such thing.
Implicitly the inevitability of the evolution process is part of the theory of evolution.
we do not have to be accountable to
God if he does not exist. Result: social Darwinism. Simple, huh?
you display your total stupidity yet again:
How does “Result: social Darwinism”
logically follow from
“we do not have to be accountable to God if he does not exist. “?
You clearly have no concept of deduction.
Anyway, back to my question:
how does social Darwinism logically/rationally follow from biological Darwinism?
26 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI wonder under what conditions could your post (on another thread) be interpreted as predicting the arrival of a super race of Christians; I see this as not at all unlkely, given the inclination of more than a few crazy Chistians to bring forward the New Jerusalem? You wrote (sounding a bit like Nietzsche on a bad night):
As a reasonable man I am willing to acknowledge that the historical roots of Nazism are more nuanced and complex than a simple opportunistic analysis could make.
However, do not labor too much to distance Nazism from the seeds planted in the 20th century mind by Darwinism.
Darwin TITLED his book thus -
[b] " The Origin of Species
...[text shortened]... nother careful reading. And I acknowledge that other factors also went into this evil brew.[/b]
God wanted not a good man. God wanted a GOD-man.
....
God did not simply want man to be good. He wanted to man to possess the uncreated Divine Person in a mingled and united way of blending.
What does this mingled - united - incorporated with Divine life man look like ?
We must study the Person of Jesus Christ to see this. Jesus Christ is what God meant by man. And it is not that Christ is an enigma. It is rather that we have fallen so far from normality.
Christ is God-man. And His eternal purpose is not to simply produe good people but to produce God-people. That is people united, mingled, blended with God Himself as their life.
The culmination of this GODNIZATION of humanity is seen in the marriage of Christ and His wife or bride the New Jerusalem at the end of the Bible.
26 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by finnegan
I wonder under what conditions could your post (on another thread) be interpreted as predicting the arrival of a super race of Christians; I see this as not at all unlkely, given the inclination of more than a few crazy Chistians to bring forward the New Jerusalem? You wrote (sounding a bit like Nietzsche on a bad night):
[b] God wanted not a go ...[text shortened]... the marriage of Christ and His wife or bride the New Jerusalem at the end of the Bible.
I wonder under what conditions could your post (on another thread) be interpreted as predicting the arrival of a super race of Christians; I see this as not at all unlkely, given the inclination of more than a few crazy Chistians to bring forward the New Jerusalem? You wrote (sounding a bit like Nietzsche on a bad night):[/b]
Well, hold on here. A few differences from sons of God to "master race" or something akin to Nazism.
1.) No New Testament command of Jesus to go forth and kill non-sons of God.
Am I right ? No command to extermnate unbelievers. I said not COMMAND to do so. I did not say not apostate perversion of fanatics to take it upon themselves to do crusades and inquisitions.
2.) The is the accumalation of quality over the ages in disciples whose numbers grow and grow. Though many have died immature as Christians some have died matured. Over the centries this number of overcomers of normal victorious Christians encreases even though they "fall asleep in Christ". The first installment of the reigning sons of God for 1,000 years is taken from this remnant of overcomers who have accumulated over many centries.
From quantity God reserves for Himself quality. Obviously, not everyone who embarks to believe into Christ HAS to cooperate to be matured through transformation and sanctification.
So as this number of overcomers encreases more and more as the centries roll on, at the second coming of Christ He will resurrect and rapture a corporate group of most normal matured victorious ones. They will be rewarded to be the co-kings to reign with Christ for 1,000 year millennial kingdom.
This can be seen in Revelation 20 and it is BEFORE the eternal age commences.
3.) If the above can be understood, we should see that santification into the image of Christ in soul, in mind, in emotion, in will, in thought and motive and intention will be rewarded with that sonship first, at the second coming of Christ.
4.) Eventually, the progress which some believers have postponed cannot be escaped from completely. So by the time of the new heaven and new earth after the millennial kingdom, all of the believers are matured - conformed, transformed, glorfified, deified, and prepared to reign with Christ for ever over the new heaven and the new earth.
I think this is quite some arrangement. It is a sonship which is thoroughly righteous and good. "You shall be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect".
This is perfected because the divine Father's life has consummed and saturated the receiver of Christ AND she or he has cooperated. This is the reproduction of Christ. This is the mass enlargement of Christ. And that cannot be anything but marvelous and the best thing that could happen to mankind.
26 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillOh the differences are clear to myself and of course to you but that was not my question.I wonder under what conditions could your post (on another thread) be interpreted as predicting the arrival of a super race of Christians; I see this as not at all unlkely, given the inclination of more than a few crazy Chistians to bring forward the New Jerusalem? You wrote (sounding a bit like Nietzsche on a bad night):
Well, h ...[text shortened]... . A few differences from sons of God to "master race" or something akin to Nazism.
.......[/b]
I imagine it would take an entirely perverse line of thinking - blind to rational criticism - to imagine that the New Jerusalem can be brought forward to benefit the self identified chosen ones in a soon to be realised apocalypse, let us say by busily breeding up a red cow and helping out the Zionist fanatics as they stoke up a doomsday scenario in Israel. Indeed one might imagine such people were not reading the Bible as written but projecting onto it their own wishful delusions. Yet we know such people do exist and are active today.
I wonder is that analogous to anything you may have said in relation to the Nazis and evolutionary theory?
26 Apr 12
Originally posted by finneganwell said! there is more of substance in your brief essay than everything lennox has ever uttered in his various debates/lectures on the topic.
It is amusing though to hear that chatty old Irishman waffling away to no purpose and relishing the attention received. Oxford University has a long tradition of leaving its tenured professors to talk about whatever they feel like without intererence, even if - as in this case - it entails such a huge diversion from the expertise for which they were appoint ...[text shortened]... ve a conversation. (A bit of proof reading would also be courteous but that's incidental).