Darwin: "the imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society"


#1

Darwin
literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-05.html
Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have
hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a
semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But
some remarks on the action of natural selection on
civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has
been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and
previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2) Most of
my remarks are taken from these three authors. With
savages, the weak in body or 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 every one to the last 
 moment.  There is reason to believe that vaccination has 
 preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution 
 would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.  Thus the 

 weak members of civilised societies 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 any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst 
 animals to breed.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Darwin
literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-04.html
But as man gradually advanced in intellectual power, and was
enabled to trace the more remote consequences of his
actions; as he acquired sufficient knowledge to reject
baneful customs and superstitions; as he regarded more
and more, not only the welfare, but the happiness of his
fellow-men; as from habit, following on beneficial
experience, instruction and example, his sympathies
became more tender and widely diffused, extending to
men of all races, to the imbecile, maimed, and other
useless members of society, and finally to the lower
animals,- so would the standard of his morality rise higher
and higher. And it is admitted by moralists of the
derivative school and by some intuitionists, that the
standard of morality has risen since an early period in the
history of man.*

Looking to future generations, there is no
cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker,
and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow
stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this
case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses
will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant.


#2

For further reading:
groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/25c8458239eb4c6b?hl=en&


#3

Yes I get it. Darwin is Satan Incarnate, the Antichrist, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Whore of Babylon. Now can you tell me what it is you do believe about evolution = descent with modification or “common descent.”

And stop with all the Darwin threads. We’re supposed to be quiet about evolution in 2006, so we need to cut down. :smiley: :eek:

BTW, Cardinal Schonborn says this on Darwin:

“With this [Origin of Species], his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge.” (Cardinal Schonborn, 10/2/2005)

He said more, but he at least said that much. No more Darwin, no more evolution, no more geocentrism, no more flat or HOLLOW earth threads. These threads cause nothing but heartache, heartsickness, and heart disease for thinking Christians, Catholics, or religious people. We must end the sadness and madness of evolution threads for 2006. But of course I won’t have anywhere to post. :crying: :whacky:

Phil P


#4

The following text is taken from this url:

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/pfw111805.htm

*In an Oct. 2, 2005, catechetical lecture delivered in St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, he [Schönborn] said: “I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained.”

Schönborn announced that he intends to deal with the theme of “creation and evolution” in his catechetical talks this year, but not as a scientist. “I do not intend to delve into the scientific details; in that domain I would doubtlessly not be qualified,” he [Schönborn] said.

The Vienna archdiocese published an English translation of
Schönborn’s lecture in early November to rebut charges that the
cardinal had “pulled back” from his New York Times piece.
In the lecture, Schönborn argues aggressively that Christianity actually made modern science possible by rejecting both the pagan deification of nature, and the Gnostic rejection of nature.
“The proposition that the relationship between the Church and science is a bad one, that faith and science, since time immemorial, have been in a state of interminable conflict, belongs to the enduring myths of our time, indeed, I would say, to the acquired prejudices of our time,” he [Schönborn] said.

“Many historical examples demonstrate how the creation faith served as the rational foundation for scientific research,” Schönborn said, pointing to the Austrian Benedictine monk Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern genetics.

Schönborn said that the real problem between science and religion is the perennial risk of “border violations,” meaning the temptation of one side or the other to exceed its competence.

He offered an example from Sir Julian Huxley [Neo-Darwinist] in 1959, on the centenary of Darwin’s Origin of Species: “In the Evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural,” Huxley wrote. “The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure.”’

This, Schönborn said, is not science.

“I am convinced that this is not a claim within the realm of the natural sciences, but rather the expression of a worldview,” he [Schonborn]. “It is essentially a ‘confession of faith’ – that faith being materialism.” *

:slight_smile:


#5

[quote=PhilVaz]Yes I get it. Darwin is Satan Incarnate, the Antichrist, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Whore of Babylon.
[/quote]

Do you agree with any of this Darwin?:

Darwin, Charles. 1874 or 1888, but not the 1871 edition. The Descent
of Man

Chapter 2 - On the Manner of Development of Man from Some Lower Form
literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-02.html
Nor have certain male and female individuals been
intentionally picked out and matched, except in the well-
known case of the Prussian grenadiers; and in this case
man obeyed, as might have been expected, the law of
methodical selection; for it is asserted that many tall men
were reared in the villages inhabited by the grenadiers
and their tall wives. In Sparta, also, a form of selection
was followed, for it was enacted that all children should
be examined shortly after birth; the well-formed and
vigorous being preserved, the others left to perish.*(3)

 *(3) Mitford's _History of Greece_, vol. i., p. 282. It
 appears from a passage in Xenophon's _Memorabilia_, B.
 ii. 4 (to which my attention has been called by the Rev.
 J. N. Hoare), that it was a well recognised principle with
 the Greeks, that men ought to select their wives with a
 view to the health and vigour of their children.  The
 Grecian poet, Theognis, who lived 550 B. C., clearly saw
 how important selection, if carefully applied, would be for
 the improvement of mankind.  He saw, likewise, that
 wealth often checks the proper action of sexual selection.
 He thus writes:

      With kine and horses, Kurnus! we proceed
      By reasonable rules, and choose a breed
      For profit and increase at any price:
      Of a sound stock, without defect or vice.
      But, in the daily matches that we make,
      The price is everything:  for money's sake,
      Men marry:  women are in marriage given
      The churl or ruffian, that in wealth has thriven,
      May match his offspring with the proudest race:
      Thus everything is mix'd, noble and base!
      If then in outward manner, form, and mind,
      You find us a degraded, motley kind,
      Wonder no more, my friend! the cause is plain,
      And to lament the consequence is vain.
 (The Works of J. Hookham Frere, vol. ii., 1872, p. 334.)

For further reading:
Darwin on selection of Spartan children
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135004225.246782.327080%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

[quote=PhilVaz]Now can you tell me what it is you do believe about evolution = descent with modification or “common descent.”
[/quote]

I have no problem with the proposition that there was intelligent design of common descent.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID + common descent: A Proposal
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404181835.d59cf7d%40posting.google.com

religious faith and common descent
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405051933.522f5d0e%40posting.google.com

1910s remarks by Caullery, Edmund B. Wilson, and Bateson on the idea of top-down unfolding/ [Bateson]"unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405161853.5f28f100%40posting.google.com


#6

[quote=PhilVaz]Yes I get it. Darwin is Satan Incarnate, the Antichrist, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Whore of Babylon.
[/quote]

Do you think this Darwin was correct as of: 1888? 1944?:

Darwin, Charles. 1874 or 1888, but not the 1871 edition. The Descent
of Man

Chapter 2 - On the Manner of Development of Man from Some Lower Form
literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-02.html
Some savage races, such as the Australians, are not
exposed to more diversified conditions than are many
species which have a wide range. In another and much
more important respect, man differs widely from any
strictly domesticated animal; for his breeding has never
long been controlled, either by methodical or unconscious
selection. No race or body of men has been so
completely subjugated by other men, as that certain
individuals should be preserved, and thus unconsciously
selected, from somehow excelling in utility to their
masters. Nor have certain male and female individuals
been intentionally picked out and matched, except in the
well-known case of the Prussian grenadiers…

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
For further reading

Hitler & Darwin on
[Hitler & Darwin]"master[s]"
over
[Darwin]"subjugated… men"
having
[Darwin]"utility to their masters"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135100164.057260.78490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com


#7

I would give conditional assent to the statement that no group of humans has been subjected to controlled breeding in the manner of domesticated animals such as cows and sheep. That is to say: I am not aware of such an event, but if someone showed me evidence of one, I would accept it.


#8

[quote=PhilVaz]BTW, Cardinal Schonborn says this on Darwin:

“With this [Origin of Species], his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge.” (Cardinal Schonborn, 10/2/2005)
[/quote]

[Schonborn]“a brilliant coup”

Darwin wasn’t nearly as original a ‘thinker’ as he would like you to
believe he was.

Barzun, Jacques. 1941. Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage
(Boston: Little, Brown and Company), 420pp., 47, 49, 51, 59, 61, 70,
87-92.

1987 Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
Van Valen denies that Darwin espoused social
Darwinism. I disagree, but I shall not quibble over
the issue. The fact remains that Darwinism has a
social origin. As a recent student of Darwinism has
pointed out, “the extrapolation from Darwinism to
either humanity or society are not separable from
Darwin’s own views, nor are they chronologically
subsequent. They are integral” (Young, 1985).

 Darwin did not fool all of his contemporaries.  I cite
 Frederick Engels in my Reply to Schoch's Comment
 (above) that the whole Darwinist teaching of the
 struggle for existence is but a "conjurer's trick."
 Arguments on the basis of the social philosophy of
 his time were the basis for Darwin's interpretation of
 the history of life, and his theory was then
 transferred back to provide the scientific basis in
 support of social Darwinism as the eternal law of
 human society.  "The puerility of this procedure is so
 obvious," Engels wrote in 1875, "that not a word
 need be said about it."

 I wish Engels had dwelt more on the "puerility of this
 procedure," so as to show the true color of "the
 argument of noise and sneers with which
 (Darwinists) tried to put down... everyone... who did
 not subscribe to the infallibility of the God Darwin
 and his prophet Huxley," as Tristram said in 1860.
 Darwin has made mistakes, and his mistakes have
 brought misery to humanity.  Facing the bias and
 obstinacy of Darwinists, I feel almost tempted to join
 my colleague, Paul Feyerabend (1975, p. 7), who
 proposed to lead "three cheers to the
 fundamentalists in California who succeeded in
 having a dogmatic formulation of the theory of
 evolution removed from the textbooks and an
 account of Genesis included."

[Schonborn]“one of that history’s most influential works”

1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Darwin on certain “distinct races” of humans being "distinct species"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134742746.958656.6900%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

[Schonborn]“the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge”

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of ‘evolution’?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990727211344.2639819A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu


#9

[Schonborn]“mental prowess”

Barzun, Jacques. 1941. Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage
(Boston: Little, Brown and Company), 420pp. A paragraph on 82-83:
A worse fault than obscurity, in view of the wide
faith accorded by the nineteenth century and ours to
scientific works, is Darwin’s hedging and self-
contradiction; for it enabled any unscrupulous reader
to choose his text from the Origin of Species or
the Descent of Man with almost the same ease of
accommodation to his purpose as if he had chosen
from the Bible. But the Bible is a whole library,
written by different men at different times, whereas
Darwin’s books are supposedly consistent from
beginning to end. On the subject of war, for
example, Darwin can be used equally well to prove
its utility to the race or the reverse, and this without
any indication that war may have contradictory
virtues.

1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312222212.4728f71b%40posting.google.com
1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310120131230.26092-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu


#10

[quote=EnterTheBowser]I would give conditional assent to the statement that no group of humans has been subjected to controlled breeding in the manner of domesticated animals such as cows and sheep. That is to say: I am not aware of such an event, but if someone showed me evidence of one, I would accept it.
[/quote]

The closest I’m aware of is recounted below.

Kater, Michael H. 2004. Hitler Youth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press), 355pp. On 97 in the chapter “German Girls for
Matrimony and Motherhood”:

 It was Himmler, that inspiring mentor to Schirach and Axmann
 in the business of human recruitment, who had very distinct
 notions about Nordifying the German people and already was
 on record for coveting superior Hitler Youths for his SS.  In
 addition, he was interested in outstanding young women as
 future mates for his prized warriors, as was common knowledge
 throughout the BDM.120  As he explained to his masseur Felix
 Kersten early in 1941, when the "Glaube und Schonheit"
 program was fully implemented, Himmler wished to see blond,

 blue-eyed girls molded according to German racial and eugenic
 criteria.  By the time they were no older than twenty-eight, they
 would be ready to assume the title of _Hohe Frau_, or High
 Woman.  (Himmler also thought that ordinary Party leaders
 should divorce their wives for the sake of marriage with a
 _Hohe Frau_.)121

 Himmler, a former chicken farmer and south German
 _Artamanen_ chief, was ruled by very strong beliefs regarding the
 application of breeding theories to humans-- by way of positive
 selection for the "Aryans" and negative selection for their
 natural enemies, the Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews.  Positive
 selection, as he was attempting to prove within his SS and as
 was routinely discussed in the higher BDM echelons, meant
 that biologically superior males should be allowed to sire as

 many children as possible, consensually with a eugenically
 appropriate partner, out of wedlock.122  These children would
 then be brought up in special SS homes, the Lebensborne or
 Founts of Life, which were being erected all over Germany
 (although never quite the breeding institutes that popular belief
 imagined, where strapping SS inseminated eager blondes).123
 To that effect, Himmler issued a "Procreation Order" to his men
 in November 1939, and he barred SS officers from promotion if
 they did not marry and, if married, did not beget offspring,
 ideally sons.124

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com


#11

Indeed, I imagine the Nazis tried - thanks for refreshing my memory. Did you have a point?


#12

[quote=EnterTheBowser]Indeed, I imagine the Nazis tried - thanks for refreshing my memory. Did you have a point?
[/quote]

Yes: their plan was brilliant, and based on science.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hitler’s brilliant human breeding plan using [1871 Darwin]“careful selection” + mutations
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Darwin on [1871 Darwin]“careful selection” in connection with the breeding of humans;
1924/5 Hitler & 1871 Darwin on heterogeneous & homogeneous peoples
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133977762.788382.143030%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler & Darwin on
[Hitler & Darwin]"master[s]"
over
[Darwin]"subjugated… men"
having
[Darwin]"utility to their masters"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135100164.057260.78490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Darwin: "the New Zealander… compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com


#13

[quote=wildleafblower]The following text is taken from this url:

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/pfw111805.htm

He [Schönborn] offered an example from Sir Julian Huxley [Neo-Darwinist] in 1959, on the centenary of Darwin’s Origin of Species: “In the Evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural,” Huxley wrote. “The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure.”’

“I am convinced that this is not a claim within the realm of the natural sciences, but rather the expression of a worldview,” he [Schonborn]. “It is essentially a ‘confession of faith’ – that faith being materialism.”
[/quote]

1957 Julian Huxley on Religion without Revelation
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407270344.53d3af56%40posting.google.com

Can anybody think of data that would lead a devout materialist to cease to [1923 J. Huxley]“reject any explanation which proceeds… by miracles”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990818214806.410371A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Paul Johnson
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&id=2828
At a revivalist meeting of Darwinians
two or three years ago, I heard
the chairman, the fiction-writer Ian
McEwan, call out, 'Yes, we do
think God is an old man in the sky
with a beard, and his name is
Charles Darwin.

Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
Darwin’s bible; Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
1918 Henry Adams on Quotemining and Darwinianity in 1867-8
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133804198.957715.189070%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

1988 M.J. French on the buttercup and the locomotive; 1953 J. Huxley
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411251245.129ea4a2%40posting.google.com

Agree with J. Huxley’s “no”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com

1995 Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of and extracts from 1977 G&E Paleobiology paper
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com

Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; 1987 Powell; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1944 J. Huxley, 1986 Lewin, 1985 Kemp, 1991 Lewontin
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9909011608210.1038433-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net


#14

[quote=davidford]Yes: their plan was brilliant, and based on science.
[/quote]

I will admit: science can be used for unethical means. We can engineer viruses and nuclear weapons and conduct statistical studies to determine the best way to firebomb cities. We can breed people to be taller, blonder, more blue-eyed, all using science. But this has little to do with whether the science is true.


#15

Darwin was a product of his time, end of story. This type of thinking was common in his day. You need to get a grip…:rolleyes:


#16

[quote=EnterTheBowser]I will admit: science can be used for unethical means. We can engineer viruses and nuclear weapons and conduct statistical studies to determine the best way to firebomb cities. We can breed people to be taller, blonder, more blue-eyed, all using science. But this has little to do with whether the science is true.
[/quote]

Do you think Darwin’s theory of natural selection “is true”?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com

Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS’s “crazy-quilt” prediction
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com


#17

[quote=spiritblows]Darwin was a product of his time, end of story. This type of thinking was common in his day.
[/quote]

Darwin was a racist.
Do you agree with me?

Darwin was the most influential racist that has ever lived.
Do you agree with me?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

1871 Darwin: [CD]“the civilised races of man”-- e.g. [CD]“the Caucasian”-- [CD]“will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”-- e.g. [CD]“the negro or Australian,” as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]"man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com

Darwin on correlation between human skin colour and odour
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135051524.767332.265230%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Darwin on certain “distinct races” of humans being "distinct species"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134742746.958656.6900%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Darwin: "the New Zealander… compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Darwin: [Greg]"the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com


#18

[quote=davidford]Do you think Darwin’s theory of natural selection “is true”?


[/quote]

Darwin’s? I think he got some things right and some things wrong. I’ve never read “Origin” so I can’t go into much more detail, but my assumption is rather justified regardless.

And yes, he probably was a racist; he probably was not the most influential racist who ever lived (Hitler?).


#19

Davidford,
In an odd coincidence I caught the first 3 minutes of a show called “Theologians Under Hitler” the other night. I didn’t have chance to watch it but apparently it is an independent documentary regarding three influential theologians, Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel and their support for Hitler.

I know that you “decline to answer” as to your point in posting links for Darwin and Nazis but using what appears to be your Darwin rationale are we soon to see postings regarding Christianity and Hitler based on the actions of the theologians listed above?
:wink:


#20

[quote=EnterTheBowser]Darwin’s? I think he got some things right and some things wrong. I’ve never read “Origin” so I can’t go into much more detail, but my assumption is rather justified regardless.

And yes, he probably was a racist; he probably was not the most influential racist who ever lived (Hitler?).
[/quote]

"Darwin… I think he got some things right and some things wrong."
Do you agree with this Dawkins?:

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
“Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.”

surrounding material in
groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com

"he [Darwin] probably was not the most influential racist who ever lived (Hitler?)"
Darwin influenced Hitler.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler embraced Darwinian natural selection
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129143372.689763.127020%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin in the 6th edition of Origin on [Darwin]“survival of the fittest” and the [Darwin]"struggle for life"
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132161340.121874.63970%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler’s human breeding plan using [1871 Darwin]“careful selection” + mutations
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Darwin on [1871 Darwin]“careful selection” in connection with the breeding of humans;
1924/5 Hitler & 1871 Darwin on heterogeneous & homogeneous peoples
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133977762.788382.143030%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Edward Simon, probably originally in his Another Side to the Evolution
Problem, Jewish Press, Jan. 7, 1983, 248,
cited in
thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm#N_1_
“I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution
brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the
theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to
the moral climate that made a holocaust possible…”


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.