|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Elitism and Nazism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Again my point is similar to that which has already been said by many mainstream evolutionists about "survival of the fittest" and Haeckel's biogenetic law. They are flawed and by their flaw they are conducive to social Darwinism.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Syamsu writes: They are flawed and by their flaw they are conducive to social Darwinism. Even if we postulate for the sake of discussion that "survival of the fittest" and Haeckel's biogenetic law are scientifically flawed, being "conducive to social Darwinism" is not a scientific flaw, and so isn't relevant to making the case that they're scientifically flawed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: Could you provide a cite for the last part of the sentence? I would point out though that natural selection to which you mostly seem to object, was dealt with more comprehensively in the Origin of Species.
quote: Here you are conflating two very different concepts. A scientist giving weaapons grade material to the nazi's is not science. Just like the chemical companies that ship me reagents are not doing science. This is a transfer of goods and in this case the scientist would be ethically responsible for what happened with the sample downstream i.e. weapon of mass destruction made or used. However, if a scientist characterizes the properties of plutonium or uranium (or develope methods for characterizing basic elements) are they then responsible if today somebody uses a nuclear weapon? Are the 19th century chemists and their discoveries of the properties of compounds responsible for the screw up with thalidomide development that lead to so many malformed children? Is the fact that DNA is a double helix as determined by Watson and Crick and others responisble in and of itself for biological weapons developed based on principles of recombinant DNA? The discovery or the science can be neutral while the uses to which it is put are not necessarily. You are not making a distinction between the two.
quote: I would disagree. The development of nuclear weapons so completely changed politics and re-enforced the polarization of the world during the cold war I think it had a profound impact on ideology...the continual reiterated notion that your enemies were ready, willing and able to obliterate you and the rest of the world had everyone living in fear for decades...not that it is over yet.
quote: Galton was also famous for beginning the field of fingerprinting in forensics. In any case, his understanding of fitness was completely wrong and he ignored Darwin when Darwin pointed it out. It was not a correct definition of fitness (i.e. social class determining fitness) in Darwin's time, and it is not a defintion that is used by evolutionary biologists today.
quote: I then apologize to you for lumping you in with him on this particular issue. I was under the impression from a few of your posts that you agreed that christians (and particularly the Catholic church) could ba absolved from any responsibility during the 3rd Reich. I see your main issue is that you want an admission that eugenics also influenced the nazi's and nobody is denying that this is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi, General!
After discovering that you were not the author of many of the words in your opening message in the Chemical Evolution thread, I decided to take a more careful look at this thread. Though I could not find on the Internet the original author of the opening post of this thread, after reviewing your other messages I am now convinced that they were not written by the same person, and that you did not write the opening message. The Forum Guidelines state:
Persistent violations of the Forum Guidelines can result in a suspension of posting privileges. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
("Descent of Man", C. Darwin, from Chapter XXI - General Summary and Conclusion)
"Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end." ========== I'm sure I have been clear enough about what my argument is already, enlessly repeating it would weaken my argument. The creation vs evolution controversy is essentially political IMO, I count myself as a creationist. For as far as the science of it goes, I'm sure that creation is true as a principle to get something from zero, on the other hand evolution seems still very questionable to me. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I'm sure I have been clear enough about what my argument is already, enlessly repeating it would weaken my argument. Your reluctance to repeat an argument you've been unable to support is understandable. Your argument is that evolution is flawed because it's been used by the eugenics movement, social Darwinism and the Nazis, but you've been unable to demonstrate how this is in any way related to the scientific validity of evolution. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The General Inactive Member |
Your Quote Percy
"After discovering that you were not the author of many of the words in your opening message in the Chemical Evolution thread, I decided to take a more careful look at this thread. Though I could not find on the Internet the original author of the opening post of this thread, after reviewing your other messages I am now convinced that they were not written by the same person, and that you did not write the opening message." First, this should not be under "Elitism and Nazism." If you have a problem with its content it should be brought to my attention under 'Chemical Evolution.'Second, who are you to say what I have written and what I have not written. This is my piece, and while it does bear some terminology similarities to 'A Case for Faith' certainly it does not plagarize as you first suggested. Last time I checked the theory was the same regardless of the source. The reason you cannot find the original author on the Internet is because I have not put it on the Internet. However last year I did send out a nine part series to about fifty readers. Part I was titled "Different Theories on Man's Origins." Chemical Evolution was an excert from it. I could post the article on here, or I could email it to you. Or I could do neither. The choice is yours. Until then please keep your suspicions to yourself. General
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The General Inactive Member |
Somehow this needs to be clarified.
I do not feel that the Christians and Catholics who participated in the Nazi atrocities should be absolved for their crimes. Perhaps I was difficult to understand earlier. No doubt there were many professing to be Christian who did commit crimes against the Jews. These should be punished and not excused. What I must have said in the wrong words is that in no way do they get they code of conduct from the teachings of Jesus, upon which Christians should reply. That is why I stated that these people were not real Christians. Becuase they were not Christ-like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Thanks for the clarification of your position. However, you seem then to miss the fact that it completely disables your arguments against Darwinism. The eugenics movement was not based on the theory of evolution. It was based on a misrepresentation of natural selection and specifically the concept of fitness which instead of being correctly defined as reproductive advantage of specific variants in a given environment, it was equated with class and wealth (in part psuedo Lamarkian). Thus, if you claim that christianity is absolved because the christians involved were not christ like and not following the teaching of jesus, evolution is absolved because the eugencists were not being scientific and were redefining scientific terms to fit their political agenda (i.e. not following what Darwin wrote about evolution.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1480 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Don't your examples lead to the unpleasant inference that
christians did, indeed, aid the holocaust? If the good christian folk of Denmark and Bulgaria preventedvictimisation of the Jews, then that must mean that the christians elsewhere in Europe did not -- otherwise the holocaust would not have happened (or to a lesser degree).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1480 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Do you know any christians who follow the exact teachings
of Jesus?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The General writes: If you have a problem with its content it should be brought to my attention under 'Chemical Evolution.' I did. See Message 4 of the Chemical Evolution thread.
Second, who are you to say what I have written and what I have not written. I am merely someone who has done the following:
These comparisons tell me you are a plagiarist, which isn't permitted here as it is a violation of the Forum Guidelines:
The General writes: This is my piece (Chemical Evolution), and while it does bear some terminology similarities to 'A Case for Faith' certainly it does not plagarize as you first suggested. Your plagiarism of the Lee Stobel material is quite blatant and obvious:
So, what do you think, General? Is Lee Stobel so simpatico with you that he can write your words in a book before you've even thought of them yourself? Or did you plagiarize Lee Stobel's words, either from his book or, more likely, from one of the many websites already using Stobel's material?
The General writes: The reason you cannot find the original author on the Internet is because I have not put it on the Internet. However last year I did send out a nine part series to about fifty readers. Part I was titled "Different Theories on Man's Origins." Chemical Evolution was an excert from it. I could post the article on here, or I could email it to you. Or I could do neither. The choice is yours. Until then please keep your suspicions to yourself. They're not suspicions. I've conclusively proved you are a plagiarist. Because of this, I think it would be a good idea for you to email any future essays to Admin and get my okay before opening any more new threads. There will be no penalties at this time, and you retain full privileges at EvC Forum. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is related to the usage of judgemental words in Darwinism, which usage is based on the flaw of having a comparitive theory over an individual one, and this flaw relates to the scientific validity of the theory.
Besides, when a theory employs words such as god, or soul for physical properties then you can reject the theory just for that, regardless of content. The usage of selfish and goodness etc. by Darwinists, is questionable in the same way. Wordusage is also a criteria for the scientific validity of a theory. (edited to add: below is a translation of natural selection to star theory. All those words I've seen used in "scientific" Darwinist books) ---Why stars exist. On the origin of variety of stars, by means of Natural Selection(the mechanism of differential lightintensity success of stars) The origin of the enormous variety in stars, and their extraordinary suitability to emit light into the environment has often been a subject of great scientific interest. Finally Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Darwin shed his own comparitive dimly light on the subject, one of the few great glimmerings in human understanding. First we take two variations of stars and measure their lightintensity. The difference would be for instance 5 units of lightintensity against 3 units. Second, there is no second, this is it, this explains the origin of variety of stars. The difference in goodness of stars in their perfection to emit light succesfully, is what lead to the great variety in stars we see in the sky. The superior stars which are the best, shine more light then the inferior ones. The purpose of a star is to emit light, that is why the star exists. It's every star's sole reason for being. In the ruthless struggle to emit light, stars don't help other, they are selfish. I do not advocate selfishness, it's just a factual observation that Nature made stars selfish. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu [This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-16-2003] [This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-16-2003] [This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Syamsu writes: The relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is related to the usage of judgemental words in Darwinism, which usage is based on the flaw of having a comparitive theory over an individual one, and this flaw relates to the scientific validity of the theory. Darwin chose to describe his theory in the popular vernacular of the time, and your perception is that the style and words of the presentation of the theory somehow relate to its scientific merits. You have failed to present any reason or rationale why this should be so. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Stars!! ????
Where did this come from? How confused can you be?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024