Spirituality
12 Feb 06
14 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think evolution is as much a philosophy as it is a scientific theory.
Focusing on such people would be a better idea than blaming Darwin for their actions.
So the root of an issue should never be discussed? Should Marx be left out of the actions of Stalin? Should Nietzsche and his Übermensch be left unconnected from Nazi ideology? Just because the likes of Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus perfected/perverted Darwin's thought into Social Darwinism, doesn't mean he shouldn't receive some mention.
It seems like rather that discussing a matter objectively, you just want to sweep it all under the carpet.
14 Feb 06
The ironic thing is, Chuck didn't consider his work hearty enough to pass scientific muster, let alone initiate the dogmatic philosophy it has become.
Any field which posits its interpretations as unerring has historically been fodder for future ridicule. I'd say evolutionary biologists fall fairly square within that same sphere.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe Einstein reference is spot on. However, eugenics works fine, assuming I know what it means. Animal breeders do it all the time with animals.
So by your logic Einstein should apologise to the Japanese for Hiroshima? No theory of relativity, no atomic bomb. In fact, I think you'll find that Mendel's work (around the same time) shows that eugenics doesn't work (because of recessive alleles). Thus anyone with an understanding of even 1861 genetics and evolutionary theory could tell you that eugenics doesn't work!!!
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseIt is interesting to see how people pervert / cannibalise / molest theories to arrive at conclusions completely unforeseen in the theories themselves (Hitler was a bad reader) but you shouldn't put the cart before the horse, so to speak. If you have an issue with eugenics, focus on eugenics: rather than blaming it all on Darwin, which is what you seem to want to do, examine the subject from all angles, including his real contribution, if any. If you compare Nietszche's philosophy with Nazi ideology, you will find two completely different animals. Have you done so? It's a lot of reading. No doubt Darwin & Nietszche both would have been horrified to see how their work was used as an alibi for murderous cretinous activities. I don't blame Christ for the Crusaders, do you?
I think evolution is as much a philosophy as it is a scientific theory.
So the root of an issue should never be discussed? Should Marx be left out of the actions of Stalin? Should Nietzsche and his Übermensch be left unconnected from Nazi ideology? Just because the likes of Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus perfected/perverted Darwin's thought int ...[text shortened]... rather that discussing a matter objectively, you just want to sweep it all under the carpet.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf you have an issue with eugenics, focus on eugenics: rather than blaming it all on Darwin, which is what you seem to want to do, examine the subject from all angles, including his real contribution, if any.
It is interesting to see how people pervert / cannibalise / molest theories to arrive at conclusions completely unforeseen in the theories themselves (Hitler was a bad reader) but you shouldn't put the cart before the horse, so to speak. If you have an issue with eugenics, focus on eugenics: rather than blaming it all on Darwin, which is what yo ...[text shortened]... an alibi for murderous cretinous activities. I don't blame Christ for the Crusaders, do you?
Great. All I've got thus far (except for Wule's contribution) is a crabbed (and jaundiced) defence of Darwain's complete innocence. Why not bring your objective angle to the table?
Nietzsche was just an example. Of course Hitler brewed a steaming green broth to which he added many ingredients - Darwinism included. Interesting how you left Marx and Communism from the discussion.
What did you think I meant by "ideological permission"?
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThe Nazis connected Nietzsche's ubermensch to Nazi ideology by perverting it (probably with his sister’s help). Nietzsche did not believe in eugenics or a “super-race” (and would’ve found the notion that the Germans could be a super-race absolutely laughable).*
I think evolution is as much a philosophy as it is a scientific theory.
So the root of an issue should never be discussed? Should Marx be left out of the actions of Stalin? Should Nietzsche and his Übermensch be left unconnected from Nazi ideology? Just because the likes of Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus perfected/perverted Darwin's thought int ...[text shortened]... rather that discussing a matter objectively, you just want to sweep it all under the carpet.
Now, did Nietzsche lend himself to such co-option by his style of writing? Probably.
I’m not saying that you were claiming anything other than this, Hal. It took a long time for the Nietzsche/Nazi connection to be unraveled—notably by the efforts of translator/philosopher Walter Kaufmann. I just always hate to see it get resurrected again... So just think of this as a qualifying footnote to the conversation. 🙂
* I’m not going to search through my library for citations on this; my recollection is that his views on these thing were stated in Beyond Good and Evil, though perhaps also in The Gay Science.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat crime are you accusing Darwin of?
All I've got thus far (except for Wule's contribution) is a crabbed (and jaundiced) defence of Darwain's complete innocence. Why not bring your objective angle to the table?
Interesting how you left Marx and Communism from the discussion.
What did you think I meant by "ideological permission"?
I don't know enough about Marx and Stalin to comment, although I suspect Stalin didn't really give a crap about the proletariat.
I can't read your mind from here, Hal, although if you post me a hair, a nail, or some skin I can give it a try. What did you mean?
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by Halitose
Of course Hitler brewed a steaming green broth to which he added many ingredients - Darwinism included. Interesting how you left Marx and Communism from the discussion.
And the Bible! Hitler used the ideas of xianity as well. After all, the majority of the German population was xian. What better way to rally your polity then with the words of their favorite book?
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou'd love to think of evolution as a philosophy because it'd make your life, trying to deconstruct it sooo much easier. But hey, I'm not going to let you force words into evolutionists mouths the way that you tried with Darwin earlier.
I think evolution is as much a philosophy as it is a scientific theory.
So the root of an issue should never be discussed? Should Marx be left out of the actions of Stalin? Should Nietzsche and his Übermensch be left unconnected from Nazi ideology? Just because the likes of Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus perfected/perverted Darwin's thought int ...[text shortened]... rather that discussing a matter objectively, you just want to sweep it all under the carpet.
Perhaps, since you are trying to pin the blame of the actions of one individual on another (or an institution), we should bear that in mind every time a priest, pastor or bishop bu**ers a little boy, and blame the church.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by AThousandYounggiven enough generations, yes. But only when the whole population is taken into consideration. Cross a great cow with a great bull and you'll likely, but not always, get great offspring. That's the recessive allele thing.
The Einstein reference is spot on. However, eugenics works fine, assuming I know what it means. Animal breeders do it all the time with animals.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Any field which posits its interpretations as unerring has historically been fodder for future ridicule."
The ironic thing is, Chuck didn't consider his work hearty enough to pass scientific muster, let alone initiate the dogmatic philosophy it has become.
Any field which posits its interpretations as unerring has historically been fodder for future ridicule. I'd say evolutionary biologists fall fairly square within that same sphere.
Like christianity?
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by rwingettI'll never celebrate a man who doubted his own professed thoughts and strove his whole life to disprove that God Almighty is the creator of Heaven and Earth.
Rejoice, rejoice! I invite all enlightened secularists and all intellectually stunted christian reactionaries to join me in celebrating the birthday of Charles Darwin, born on this day in 1809 (the same birthday as Abraham Lincoln). For more things Darwin, you can go to:
http://www.darwinday.org/
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzChristianity doesn't count. It's divine in nature. Jesus Christ is the Messiah and His Word has no error. Only men who add or take away from the Word make it seem like it errs. But, the real World of God is everlasting, eternal, timeless... and has always existed from the foundations of the Earth and before. Even when before God made "something" out of "nothing," it remained the Truth and always was the Truth. No man has ever gone wrong by living the Words of the Gospel, and no man ever will. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
"Any field which posits its interpretations as unerring has historically been fodder for future ridicule."
Like christianity?
14 Feb 06
Wow. Sensitive subject. Perhaps I should give everybody a chance to simmer down. No, not you, Tell, I like you angry (and of course those that never got wound up have no winding down to do).
Homework for the day: Did the Theory of Evolution undermine the Judeo-Christian view of humanity (I'm only taking essays in excess of 100 words – the rest flunk)?
Just to preempt all the typical red herrings about sour grapes and how stupid the Judeo-Christian view is anyway, lets just stick to the question.