The Disasters Darwinism brought to Humanity

reply to post by melatonin


Talk about intellectual dishonestly - you take take the cake!!! You guys love to tell that lie that Darwinism is as sure as gravity. All you have is micro-evolution evidence the rest in faith based conjecture and atheist religion. Hahahaha - sorry not even close dude. Its so full of holes it doesn't hold water.

reply to post by SGTChas


If you're done bloviating?

"Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel"

That is to say, they did not use Darwin's theory or his writings. They used pseudoscientific essays and interpretations by Ernst Haeckel and Herbert Spencer. These two men are who you should be lambasting for their ideas - with or without the Nazis making use of them.

But holy hell, that would mean looking crap up, wouldn't it?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Darwinism is actually pretty flawed. I'm sure Melatonin would even say so. However, "Darwinism" is simply an early school of thought of evolutionary biology. A pioneering step, but without hte resources we have at our disposal now. Darwin was stuck with Linnaean classification based on similar physical traits for instance, rather than genetics.

OMG more research!

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Darwinism is actually pretty flawed. I'm sure Melatonin would even say so.

If you mean just evolution by means of natural selection, no so much flawed, just one part of evolution. So there is more than just darwinian evolution to evolutionary theory. And the relative importance of the theory's various consituent mechanisms (NS, SS, evo-devo, drift etc) is an on-going debate.

But darwin was incorrect on many things (e.g., heredity).

So darwnism is a pretty restrictive view of evolution.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Let me not attempt to marginalize with rudeness as some seem to be quite adept at, but HAVE you looked anything up? Do you know the definition of "elaborations" as well as you do childish and rude? The use of adjectives to cover a deficiency in logic bespeaks small mindedness.


[edit on 6/13/2008 by SGTChas]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by SGTChas

 

If you're done bloviating?

"Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel"

That is to say, they did not use Darwin's theory or his writings. They used pseudoscientific essays and interpretations by Ernst Haeckel and Herbert Spencer. These two men are who you should be lambasting for their ideas - with or without the Nazis making use of them.

But holy hell, that would mean looking crap up, wouldn't it?

Haeckel’s scientific religion

Haeckel, however, was not simply a biologist in the sense that we would use that word today. For he saw himself—and was seen by many German intellectuals and artists in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century—as the founder of a new scientific religion. He called his philosophy monism and saw himself as the leader of a movement of aggressive rationalism which would eventually rid Germany of the last traces of superstitious religion and replace Christianity with a religion which glorified modern science.

Richard Webster
Why Freud was Wrong:Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis
p. 229–230,

- Con

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

face up to the reality that it is the only truly scientific explanation we have for things instead of trying to throw out the "darwin was a bigot" card.

The full title of Darwin’s Magnum Opus is Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin’s other writings reveal how barbarous evolutionary philosophy can be:

With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature … We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.

(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134, 1887)

now either stop spreading this sort of ignorance (which you have done with quite a few threads recently) or leave.

Before he destroys ATS?

- Con






[edit on 14-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

atheism is not a religion,

Government school classrooms:
temples of humanism?

Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … .

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.

Source: J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26 (emphases added), cited by Wendell R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, vol. 2, p. 257.

Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that
evolution is a religion

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.
Reference

1. Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

The religion of scientism

‘It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).’

Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984

Hitler and Evolution
by Sir Arthur Keith

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

Reference, Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.

some nazi belt buckles said "god is with us" on them
...yeah, totally not true

No what is totally untrue is that YOU keep thinking Nazi Soldiers who were Atheists simply went out of uniform the same because their belt buckles had God cooties on them like Atheists here won't use our Coin currency because they say in God we trust.

I'd come up with something more plausible than that old comeback from the "How to handle a fundie" website.

communism is no direct product of atheism, it is a political ideology that can be completely separate from atheism.

Just like Christians and their Religion can be seprate from Science

you're failing at logical consistency

How would YOU know

- Con





[edit on 14-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

I guess this is sufficient nowadays...

We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

"In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership. The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members..."


- The New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2

Linky for both

[nazis]Atheists: do not want![/nazis]

[nazis]Freethinkers: do not want![/nazis]

On the attitude towards the Church: The Fuehrer's attitude was a generous one, at first extremely so. I should not like to say that it was positive in the sense that he himself was a positive or convinced adherent of any one confession, but it was generous and positive in the sense that he recognised the necessity of the Church. Although he himself was a Catholic, he wished that the Protestant Church should have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant.

...

The Fuehrer wanted to achieve the unification of the Protestant and Evangelical Churches by appointing a Reichsbishop, so that there would be a high Protestant Church dignitary as well as a high Catholic Church dignitary. To begin with, he left the choice to the Evangelical Churches, but they could not come to an agreement. Finally they produced one name, the very one which did not suit us. Then a man, who had the Fuehrer's confidence to a higher degree than any of the other provincial bishops was appointed Reichsbishop.

Goering 1946

[nazis]Christians: necessary for ze Reich![/nazis]





[nazis]Christians and nazis: Because you are special and the Joos suck. Working together to bring you the Aryan world that is your divine right.[/nazis]


[edit on 14-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

EVOLUTION WATCH
Darwin-Hitler connection sparks attacks
Bloggers try to discredit experts on evolution's connection to bloodshed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 22, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com




A new television program linking Darwin to Hitler and the contemporary abortion industry isn't even on the air yet, and already the attacks have begun on those who appear in it.


The results of Darwin’s theories

Author and Christian broadcaster D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries said the new "Darwin’s Deadly Legacy" is a ground-breaking inquiry into Darwin’s "chilling" social impact, and it will air nationwide on Aug. 26-27 on "The Coral Ridge Hour."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 22, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
www.worldnetdaily.com...

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Coral Ridge ministries? Worldnutdaily?

Oh noes! Run for the hills.

reply to post by melatonin


That's all he's got. You'd think he'd realise he's on to a loser if his beliefs are only supported in religious publications and fanatical tabloids. Kind of like Daily Mail readers :-P

OK Try the BBC Channel 4 then!


Darwinism exposed as the atheist dogma/worldview/religion. Not only that, it is scientifically inaccurate and needs a comprehensive rewrite.



[edit on 6/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
atheism is not a religion, it's a lack of belief in a god
it has no belief structure, organization, holy book, or shared outlook. just a lack of god.

Religion:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

Now that we've gotten past the misconception that atheism is not a religion . . .

some nazi belt buckles said "god is with us" on them
...yeah, totally not true

I know potheads that wear D.A.R.E. T-shirts.

communism is no direct product of atheism, it is a political ideology that can be completely separate from atheism.

a square is a rhombus, but a rhombus is not a square

that's just stupid.
nothing more i need to say to that.

if everyone else thought it was clever, you'd be wrong.

plato also said that the majority of people are unfit to rule themselves, thus democracy would be an inadequate form of government.
in fact, he would view fascism as superior to democracy.

Your personal distaste for a mans single assertion, does not invalidate his others.

you're failing at logical consistency

your retorts to his claims have fallen far short of logic.

[edit on 6/17/2008 by JPhish]

Evolution: a blind scream at the heavens that there WILL BE NO GOD! An emotional metaphysical pseudo scientific Godless religion whose high priest cloak themselves in a laughable claim of objectivity in the search for scientific fact, while running a ruthless 'inquisition' to crush those who dare to question their atheistically acceptable views. All the while espousing conclusions they desperately search for the evidence to confirm (anyone found that darn Ort cloud yet?); flinging suppositions they claim as support of their 'scientific theories' based on evidence they either manufacture (Drat! What happened to the Peking man?), or KNOW just HAS to exist (Just IGNORE the Probability Theorist with their "Universal Probability Boundary" behind the curtain - THE EMPEROR DOES HAVE CLOTHES!) BECAUSE THERE CANNOT BE A GOD!

Why? Because as Carl Sagan said when asked what would happen if he was wrong and there WAS a God: "Well, I guess I'd be in trouble."

reply to post by SGTChas


Ignorance. Can you back up any of those claims with evidence, or are they simply the mutterings of someone who doesn't understand science or evolution?

The scientific method has determined evolution to be the most complete view of how species develop, by looking at evidence. If God didn't want us to believe in evolution, why did he spend such time and effort in creating DNA or fossils, if both don't actually do or mean anything?

You, on the other hand, have zero evidence for anything you just claimed. All that was is your brain trying to construct a defense mechanism against reason, by slandering the people, institutions, and methods used by critical observers trying to understand the universe. They happen to call out your favourite religious text as baseless rubbish, and seemingly your fragile faith can't handle that, so your brain steps in, creates its own reality, and invites you to live your life in there. You accepted. Welcome to ignorance

reply to post by dave420

Well I know better then to answer the willfully blind in their folly, but... Got a pocket calculator? Do the math. It was the Probability Thereorist who ran the numbers on DNA forming by chance, not me. Their the ones who called evolution "silly". These are the super math geeks of the Probability Sciences; a new scientific discipline that evolutionist hate to deal with because it make their theories look stupid, which they are.

"When Probability Theorist began to run the numbers on just single small protein molecule coming together by chance, it was found that a single short functional protein of 100 amino acids (some are thousands of amino acids long) had 1 chance in 10 to the 30 of happening randomly. When they ran the numbers on a single haemoglobin molecule, it had 1 chance in 10 to the 650th power of randomly forming. Because of this molecules specificity, some contested it had a much higher ratio of improbability then this. This means that EVEN if one conceded that the universe was as old as evolutionist claimed (15 billion years = 10 to the 18th power seconds in all of history), with one try every thousandth of a second there would not be enough time in all of time for random chance to have made a single functional haemoglobin molecule. With 10 to the 80th particles of matter in the entire universe, there was not enough matter either!

As scientist began to clearly understand the improbabilities of even a single functional protein forming within even 15 billion years by chance, they expostulated that perhaps the amino acids formed proteins out of chemical necessity instead of randomly. However, when confronted with the information encoded in DNA, most unbiased researchers have realized that that would be like trying to claim that some chemical property of paper and ink caused this study to come together by itself – improbable. This because the information digitally encoded in the DNA molecule is neither random nor periodic, it is highly organized and complex.

Important Note: Any appeal to chance that is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 150 power is said to be the mathematical definition of absurdity as this is the Universal Probability Boundary; the point at which the probabilistic resources of the entire universe have been exhausted, and appeals to chance have become unreasonable."

Enough said.

[edit on 6/17/2008 by SGTChas]

Oh I forgot, when the rocket scientist of evolutionary theory were confronted with the mathematical probabilistic absurdities of their conclusions in search for evidence, they ran back to the drawing board to revamp their postulations of stunning brilliance to suggest "panspermia". This is basically the belief that aliens dumped their garbage or waste on the earth as they were tooling through our solar system & this is HOW we got complex amino acids & life began... Amazing...


[edit on 6/17/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/17/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/17/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/17/2008 by SGTChas]

Reality doesn't conform to your fuzzy feelings and wishful-thinking

I wasn't going to post in this thread till I read the quote above and this is what i got to say on THAT:

Yep, it's anti-female! It hates women, it hates children, it hates emotion, tenderness, compassion. It's a mechanistic, cold-hearted pile of drivel. The whole theory should be drop-kicked into some remote part of the universe where there is no life it can harm!


[edit on 17-6-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Yep, it's anti-female! It hates women, it hates children, it hates emotion, tenderness, compassion. It's a mechanistic, cold-hearted pile of drivel. The whole theory should be drop-kicked into some remote part of the universe where there is no life it can harm!

Gravity is like though, eh? Saggy breasts and grazed knees, unfeeling cold-hearted physics.

Reality is a misogynist!