Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitler the creationist, says talk origins
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 4 (168121)
12-14-2004 1:56 PM


Hello again people
CA006.1: Hitler's views
"The first edition of Mein Kampf indicates that Hitler was a young-earth creationist at the time of its writing; it says, "[. . .] this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men." (p. 65) (The second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands.")"
I checked out this claim, it turns out that Hitler uses "hundreds of thousands of years of higher development" in chapter 11 or something of the book Mein Kampf, first edition. So using this added fact, the reconstructed originally already feeble argument becomes, Hitler turned from a creationist to an evolutionist while writing "Mein Kampf". Not impossible I guess, but quite obviously a prejudicially contrived hypothesis.
When repeatedly confronted with the fact that Hitler talks about hundreds of thousands of years of higher development in chapter 11, the evolutionist crowd at talk.origins newsgroup, including the author of it, did not change that "faq".
Other things in it are also very questionably slanted.
The line: "Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy.", is deceptive because the role of darwinism in the rise of pseudobiological racism is considered significant by most mainstream historians.
"Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics." is deceptive because historically evolutionary theory has promoted eugenics, racism and social darwinism on a massive scale. This should say in stead evolutionary theory doesn't neccessarily promote racism and eugenics.
"Genocide and racism have existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they do not need any contribution from Darwinism." is deceptive because it glosses over the fact that they did get a significant contribution from Darwinism.
And so on, and so on, obviously this faq is a shoddy and slanted defensive evolutionist effort.
The "creationism" of Hitler lays most significantly in that he attributes creativity to Aryan blood. This is central to his racist doctrine. Creation there is not by God, but by blood, and the blood is worshipped as a godhead.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-16-2004 10:33 AM Syamsu has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 4 (168875)
12-16-2004 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
12-14-2004 1:56 PM


If all you are trying to sell the idea that part of Hitler's actions were based on his interpretations of evolutionary theory, I (and I suspect most anyone else) would not really disagree with you.
If you are saying that Hitler's use or misuse of evolutionary theory ivalidates evolutionary theory, that is something else.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2004 1:56 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Syamsu, posted 12-16-2004 11:06 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 3 of 4 (168885)
12-16-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
12-16-2004 10:33 AM


Actually not that many evolutionist activists would agree with that.
My intention is to pressure the author into including the reference to "hundreds of thousands of years of higher breeding" in chapter 11, first edition, in the claim, or either detract the feeble claim. This to be done by enough evolutionists protesting the claim as it is.
It doesn't make natural selection right either, and the argument is that it isn't right. In many contexts slogans like "survival of the fittest" are quasi-political. Since the fittest don't actually survive always, it becomes like; well the fittest *should* survive, according to natural selection. It is like Ariew and Mathen said, a "valueladen" goal of selection that the fittest survive.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-16-2004 10:33 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 12-16-2004 11:56 AM Syamsu has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 4 (168896)
12-16-2004 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Syamsu
12-16-2004 11:06 AM


Rejected, closed 4/26/05
This is just the camel's nose of your particular flavor of the "evolution is invalid" argument, but if this thread is destined for [forum=-8] then I'm all in favor, and even volunteer as one of the moderators. But the release decision on this topic should be up to Moose since he's been much more directly involved.
--Percy
{Rejected and closed 4/26/05 - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-26-2005 02:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Syamsu, posted 12-16-2004 11:06 AM Syamsu has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024