Does Darwinism lead to bigotry? (1 Viewer)

[Peter Grimm]

You're absolutely right. He can be a landmark scientist and ethically repugnant at the same time, you know.

I don't admire Charles Darwin. But I am impressed by his scientific work.

I agree he is a terrible person.

I disagree that his work ought to be admired. I thought you said Darwinism has nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution? If it is true that most of his theory was incorrect, what is there to admire about his scientific work?

No, it doesn't. You're simply wrong.

Your family tree can be determined by DNA anaylsis. Does this mean you are a different race from all other families?

Family is a different concept from race. The analogy doesn't really work.

You have a shallow understanding of how genetics works.

When did you get your PhD in Biology?

All people of all races will respond the same way to environmental pressures.

That's not true either. Why don't Eskimos have blue eyes and blonde hair?

Put any person of any race in a malaria-intensive environment, and within a couple generations, they will have the same mutation that black and Mediterranean people have for dealing with it.

That could be true, however it's not supported by any evidence I am aware of.

These are not proof of race. They're proof that all organisms are capable of adaptation.

Race is a set of distinct physical characteristics. These distinct physical characteristics come about by physical adaptation to differing environments over a period of time, and also just random genetic selection.

You seem to be confused by the definition of race.

If you grew up in a different climate, even with the EXACT same genetics you have now, you would look different. You might be shorter or taller, have bigger or smaller heart and lungs, etc. Environments are profoundly impactful on what we look and function like, even after birth.

True, but look around you. In the United States, you have neighbors who grow up in the same environments who are are black, white, and asian. Why? They have different genes.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I have already explained to you, in general, all of the tests and mechanisms we have studied to come to this conclusion. If you want more, ask your friend Google. I am not going to be your biology teacher.

lol, nice cop out. But there is no need to get testy. Just provide the information or don't

 

[Somerville]

Since we are talking about Darwin's influence and not about the modern theory of evolution, "Darwinism" is the correct term.

Does Darwinism have to make a direct "moral claim" in order to affect someone's morals?

Of course not. Your premise is incorrect, hence your argument fails.

It's so much easier to claim victory when yours are the only opinions that count.

 

[Peter Grimm]

It's so much easier to claim victory when yours are the only opinions that count.

I'm not interested in opinions. I'm interested in facts.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

lol, nice cop out. But there is no need to get testy. Just provide the information or don't

I have already told you -- in precise terms -- what sorts of tests we did on what to come to this conclusion. I mentioned types of mutations and types of DNA. I mentioned epigenetics. I've practically given you all your search terms. However, I am not a biologist -- just a relatively educated layperson. Why don't you want to consult an actual biology information source for more specific information? What exactly are you hoping I might tell you that I haven't already?

It's not a cop out. It's a deferment to people better-educated than myself. And you're simply being obstinate.

 

[Somerville]

Peter Grimm makes yet one more false assertion in his quest to prove . . . something, I'm not sure what after reading his numerous posts

If Darwin does not make a moral claim, and Hitler similarly does not make a moral claim but acts in a way that is in accordance to natural law as outlined by Darwin, can you say that he (Hitler) is either good or bad?

If Adolf Hitler acted "in accordance to natural law as outlined by Darwin", when then did the Nazi government ban works by Darwin

Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939
you will need to dig a bit but here's the relevant part

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel)

also included in the list

According to the principles governing the compilation of this list, the following publications must be removed from public and commercial lending libraries:

c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

 

[Somerville]

I'm not interested in opinions. I'm interested in facts.

But so far in this thread, you have shown little interest in facts

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

And the total lack of any truly unique genetic features rules out this possibility in the case of humans.

I am not sure of the exact criteria taxonomy is basing there new distinctions on, but I believe in a recent conversation with a researcher studying Pumillo, that his data was largely dependent on allele frequency

Yes, and that takes much longer and/or much more significant change than what we've seen in humans.

What are you basing this on? The speed of Speciation is highly dependent on a number of factors, from genetic mutation, to degree of isolation and environmental pressures. There are species of frogs that have developed into their own "species" in a few thousand years, once they were isolated on a small island

If humans had stayed geographically isolated for 3 or 4 times as many years, perhaps we would have seen speciation. But because humans' primary evolutionary strategy is intelligence, there was not much need for physical adaptation, and thus we really didn't see much of it, and that we did see was purely superficial.

again, those 'superficial" adaptations are exactly what distinctions for species were largely based on until the introduction of modern genetics.

No, it wouldn't. A chihuahua and a Great Dane are part of the same species. I would say they look far more different from each other than any race of humans from any other race.

Dogs are specifically bred for type from a common ancestor. Again, this is rather common in plant and animal husbandry and is never considered a distinct species, but mutations, intentionally reproduced, within that group.

The epigenetics of an organism are capable of enourmous amounts of adaptation, even after birth. They can also be passed down. Plus, any set of genetic make-up is capable of many extremely different expressions. This makes it possibly to have windly up with two wildly different-looking organisms, and no speciation whatsoever.

I'm not sure where I ever ruled out the above

 

[Peter Grimm]

Peter Grimm makes yet one more false assertion in his quest to prove . . . something, I'm not sure what after reading his numerous posts




If Adolf Hitler acted "in accordance to natural law as outlined by Darwin", when then did the Nazi government ban works by Darwin

Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939
you will need to dig a bit but here's the relevant part


also included in the list

What on earth are you going on about? Your evidence, if I can even call it that, doesn't even support the argument I think you're trying to make. It doesn't say that Darwin was banned, it doesn't say that it wasn't. It's just a bunch of general garble.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I have already told you -- in precise terms -- what sorts of tests we did on what to come to this conclusion. I mentioned types of mutations and types of DNA. I mentioned epigenetics. I've practically given you all your search terms. However, I am not a biologist -- just a relatively educated layperson. Why don't you want to consult an actual biology information source for more specific information? What exactly are you hoping I might tell you that I haven't already?

It's not a cop out. It's a deferment to people better-educated than myself. And you're simply being obstinate.

Again, there is no reason for you to get upset, and I am more than open to being wrong here. However, I think you have failed to make your case. Just look at your early argument concerning what constitutes a species, your assertions concerning human species based on that, and their clearly faulty nature (that you failed to recognize that species can interbreed in many instances)

 

[Somerville]

What on earth are you going on about? Your evidence, if I can even call it that, doesn't even support the argument I think you're trying to make. It doesn't say that Darwin was banned, it doesn't say that it wasn't. It's just a bunch of general garble.

What am I going on about? Thruout this thread you have attempted to tie the work of Charles Darwin to the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Germany. I supplied a link with the headline: Lists of Banned Books On that list are the works of Charles Darwin.


Also on the list are those books that ridicule Christianity


I cannot help a person who continually denies reality

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I agree he is a terrible person.

I disagree that his work ought to be admired. I thought you said Darwinism has nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution? If it is true that most of his theory was incorrect, what is there to admire about his scientific work?

That isn't what I said. What I said is that Darwin's theory was just a jumping off point. Modern evolution has evidence that has lead to extensions of the theory that Darwin had no access to (such as carbon dating, genetic testing, etc).

His work laid the foundation for the theory itself, even though it did not present a complete picture of it. It was a breakthrough in the sense that it was an idea no one had yet presented, and he presented it with a large body of evidence, even if it was very incomplete compared to what we have now.

He was right on many things, wrong on some, and totally clueless on others. But science is about innovation, and Darin was major in those terms.

Family is a different concept from race. The analogy doesn't really work.

Yes, and that's exactly what I was saying to you. The type of testing you mentioned is precisely the same type of testing we'd use to find family lines. It cannot be used to make sweeping statements about the entire human species in a macro evolution context.

When did you get your PhD in Biology?

Nowhere, but I obviously know more about this than you. It is possible to be a somewhat educated layperson, you know.

That's not true either. Why don't Eskimos have blue eyes and blonde hair?

Because that is not a common gene within their specific gene pool. But they do carry it. Those are both recessive traits, which is why most people -- from anywhere -- do not display them. They just happen to be less common than usual in that specific population, and their recessive nature makes them unlikely to be expressed when darker, dominant hair/eye genes are so common.

That could be true, however it's not supported by any evidence I am aware of.

This is talking about a different illness also related to malaria exposure, but it talks about rapid generational resistance.

"Studies have shown that first-generation immigrants from S. China retain the high incidence of the disease, with the later generations showing a decline in incidence. This suggests that environmental as well as genetic factors are involved."
Burkitt's Lymphoma

This is a study concluding RA is probably a left-over from ancestoral malaria resistant genes, in any race.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/arth/2012/670579/

And finally, sickle cell/malaria resistance genes are not unique to black people. They also occur in white people from the southern areas of Europe, which historically had a fair amount of malaria infection. This pre-dates the Atlantic slave trade, so it is not a result of interracial reproduction.
Population Characteristics For Sickle Cell Anemia | LIVESTRONG.COM

Race is a set of distinct physical characteristics. These distinct physical characteristics come about by physical adaptation to differing environments over a period of time, and also just random genetic selection.

But they're not very distinct, are they?

What do redheads and Greeks have in common, apart from having skin that is lighter than coffee? Nothing. They are different-looking from each other as any black person vs. any Asian. But both are "white." That's a cultural definition.

Black people can be lighter than Greeks, or they can be almost literally black. They can have enormous diversity in facial and body structure. There really is nothing that is universally true of them, except that they aren't white and don't have straight hair.

You seem to be confused by the definition of race.

Nope. I think you are, actually.

]True, but look around you. In the United States, you have neighbors who grow up in the same environments who are are black, white, and asian. Why? They have different genes.

Yes, they do. However, they might be lighter or darker, taller of shorter, stouter or thinner, longer or shorter limbed, depending on where they were born. Obviously a born individual is not capable of complete transformation, but you'd be amazed how significant the change can be if you simply raise them somewhere else.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Again, there is no reason for you to get upset, and I am more than open to being wrong here. However, I think you have failed to make your case. Just look at your early argument concerning what constitutes a species, your assertions concerning human species based on that, and their clearly faulty nature (that you failed to recognize that species can interbreed in many instances)

I have failed to make my case against a single 10-year-old article that was written before modern methods of analysis were even invented?

I have told you precisely why that kind of exceptional ism doesn't apply to people. Will you try reading?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I have failed to make my case against a single 10-year-old article that was written before modern methods of analysis were even invented?

though I also have been rather clear about a movement towards modernization within taxonomy, I am unsure how it addresses my early points about the inherent issues within classification; that things can be categorized as species, despite being able to reproduce viable offspring (your original claim); and how that would address the issue that there still exist modern numerous differing schools of thought on what constitutes a species.

I have told you precisely why that kind of exceptional ism doesn't apply to people. Will you try reading?

and I didn't address them? If so, post a link, and will be happy to read your argument

PS just to drive my point home, the issue surrounding what actually constitutes a distinct species is still heavily debated to my knowledge, with constant reshuffling of taxonomic classification being a fact of life for any researcher (assuming the researcher even acknowledges the school of thought that the new classification is based on)

Here is a book from 2010 attempting to offer some clarification on the issue, but in no way "closed" the debate

http://www.amazon.com/Species-Problem-Philosophical-Cambridge-Philosophy/dp/0521196833

 

[Peter Grimm]

That isn't what I said. What I said is that Darwin's theory was just a jumping off point. Modern evolution has evidence that has lead to extensions of the theory that Darwin had no access to (such as carbon dating, genetic testing, etc).

His work laid the foundation for the theory itself, even though it did not present a complete picture of it. It was a breakthrough in the sense that it was an idea no one had yet presented, and he presented it with a large body of evidence, even if it was very incomplete compared to what we have now.

He was right on many things, wrong on some, and totally clueless on others. But science is about innovation, and Darin was major in those terms.

What good is innovation if you don't get it right? What good is a new "discovery" if it ends up being BS? You're glossing over just how wrong Darwin really was in his theories. They were not just expanded on, they were completely overhauled.

Yes, and that's exactly what I was saying to you. The type of testing you mentioned is precisely the same type of testing we'd use to find family lines. It cannot be used to make sweeping statements about the entire human species in a macro evolution context.

Incorrect. When you're looking for familial relationship, you're looking at a different part of a gene. But, a race is somewhat like an extended biological family in that people of the same race have common ancestors.

Nowhere, but I obviously know more about this than you. It is possible to be a somewhat educated layperson, you know.

Just stop.

Because that is not a common gene within their specific gene pool. But they do carry it. Those are both recessive traits, which is why most people -- from anywhere -- do not display them. They just happen to be less common than usual in that specific population, and their recessive nature makes them unlikely to be expressed when darker, dominant hair/eye genes are so common.

Blonde hair and blue eyes are common in Scandinavian countries. They are nearly non-existent in the Sami populations who existed in Scandinavia before the European people got there.

Anyway, you are admitting above that different races have different genetic proclivities. And you are correct, which is why there is a biological basis for race. A geneticist can draw blood from a European, and Asian, and an African, and... without ever meeting the people.... can tell you which race each person belongs to.

This is talking about a different illness also related to malaria exposure, but it talks about rapid generational resistance.

"Studies have shown that first-generation immigrants from S. China retain the high incidence of the disease, with the later generations showing a decline in incidence. This suggests that environmental as well as genetic factors are involved."
Burkitt's Lymphoma

This is a study concluding RA is probably a left-over from ancestoral malaria resistant genes, in any race.
Possible Influence of Resistance to Malaria in Clinical Presentation of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Biological Significance of Natural Selection

And finally, sickle cell/malaria resistance genes are not unique to black people. They also occur in white people from the southern areas of Europe, which historically had a fair amount of malaria infection. This pre-dates the Atlantic slave trade, so it is not a result of interracial reproduction.
Population Characteristics For Sickle Cell Anemia | LIVESTRONG.COM

Correct, but this isn't really an argument that all individuals, families, or races adapt exactly the same way to the same environmental stimuli. In fact, such a proposition is unlikely simply because it is improbable.

But they're not very distinct, are they?

What do redheads and Greeks have in common, apart from having skin that is lighter than coffee? Nothing. They are different-looking from each other as any black person vs. any Asian. But both are "white." That's a cultural definition.

Black people can be lighter than Greeks, or they can be almost literally black. They can have enormous diversity in facial and body structure. There really is nothing that is universally true of them, except that they aren't white and don't have straight hair.

I suppose that would be a subjective judgement. I can tell you, however, that even infants can tell the difference between races. I can provide links to the studies if you are skeptical. Essentially, though, infants fixate on the shape of the eyes, nose, and mouth. Africans, Europeans, and Asians have differently shaped eyes, noses, and mouths, and thus look quite different.

Nope. I think you are, actually.



Yes, they do. However, they might be lighter or darker, taller of shorter, stouter or thinner, longer or shorter limbed, depending on where they were born. Obviously a born individual is not capable of complete transformation, but you'd be amazed how significant the change can be if you simply raise them somewhere else.

Again, subjective. A black man in America has more physical features in common with Africans than he does with white or asian americans. A white woman in America looks more like a white woman in Europe than she does an asian or black woman in the United States. An asian baby born in California looks more like an Asian baby than a white or black baby born in hospital room down the hall.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

What good is innovation if you don't get it right? What good is a new "discovery" if it ends up being BS? You're glossing over just how wrong Darwin really was in his theories. They were not just expanded on, they were completely overhauled.

No, they were not. The mechanism of evolution has remained the same since Darwin, and that is the most essential part.

There's never been a major player in biology who wasn't wrong about an awful lot of things. Unlike something like physics, it's harder to mathematically model.

Incorrect. When you're looking for familial relationship, you're looking at a different part of a gene. But, a race is somewhat like an extended biological family in that people of the same race have common ancestors.

You're looking for quite a number of genes, actually, depending on sex and what kind of familiar relation. You obviously know nothing about this.

Blonde hair and blue eyes are common in Scandinavian countries. They are nearly non-existent in the Sami populations who existed in Scandinavia before the European people got there.

Relatively speaking, yes. But only relatively speaking.

I just explained the mechanism to you. It's not my fault you refuse to accept it.

Anyway, you are admitting above that different races have different genetic proclivities. And you are correct, which is why there is a biological basis for race. A geneticist can draw blood from a European, and Asian, and an African, and... without ever meeting the people.... can tell you which race each person belongs to.

No, I'm not. I just proved that humans from just about anywhere will respond the same way under the same pressures. You either haven't read my links, or don't possess the base knowledge to understand them.

I suppose that would be a subjective judgement. I can tell you, however, that even infants can tell the difference between races. I can provide links to the studies if you are skeptical. Essentially, though, infants fixate on the shape of the eyes, nose, and mouth. Africans, Europeans, and Asians have differently shaped eyes, noses, and mouths, and thus look quite different.

Yes, they can. Learning starts immediately. And since their intellect is practically inactive, all they have to go on is the emotional reactions they see around them.

Show them a Greek and an Iraqi and I bet they get pretty confused. One is "white" and the other is "arab," even though they look extremely similar, and often interchangable.

Again, subjective. A black man in America has more physical features in common with Africans than he does with white or asian americans. A white woman in America looks more like a white woman in Europe than she does an asian or black woman in the United States. An asian baby born in California looks more like an Asian baby than a white or black baby born in hospital room down the hall.

Which Africans, dude?

Are you talking about the milkie, large-lipped Africans of the North, of the pitch-black, thin-lipped Africans of the East?

The 4'6" African Pigmies, of the 6'5" Kenyans?

When you can tell me that, I'll start caring what you think.

 

[Peter Grimm]

No, they were not. The mechanism of evolution has remained the same since Darwin, and that is the most essential part.

There's never been a major player in biology who wasn't wrong about an awful lot of things. Unlike something like physics, it's harder to mathematically model.

If it's the mechanism that's the most important part, then it's still relevant to discuss Darwin when discussing the social impact of his theories. So, your original criticism of the OP has been shown to be wrong.

You're looking for quite a number of genes, actually, depending on sex and what kind of familiar relation.

Yes, but that proves my point, not yours. You're not looking at the same genes like you originally tried to state.

You obviously know nothing about this.

Just stop.

Relatively speaking, yes. But only relatively speaking.

I just explained the mechanism to you. It's not my fault you refuse to accept it.

Refuse to accept what? That blue eyes are a recessive trait? Everybody knows that. The "mechanism," or how recessive traits are passed on and expressed, has nothing to do with the fact that race is real. Again, the problem we keep coming back to is that you don't seem to understand what race is.

Race is an assortment of phenotypes, based on having common ancestors. Kind of like an extended family.

That Eskimos might carry recessive genes which are hardly ever expressed is irrelevant. The fact is that Eskimos by in large have brown eyes.

No, I'm not. I just proved that humans from just about anywhere will respond the same way under the same pressures. You either haven't read my links, or don't possess the base knowledge to understand them.

What? No you haven't. You've shown evidence (you have not "proved") that humans from just about anywhere will respond similarly (quite different from "the same way") under similar (not "the same") pressures.

Read that last sentence a couple more times, and please reassess which one of us lacks the base knowledge to contribute to this debate.

Yes, they can. Learning starts immediately. And since their intellect is practically inactive, all they have to go on is the emotional reactions they see around them.

1. Duh
2. How does that help your case? Infants learn to recognize facial features early. This is why they can discern between races, and facial differences are one of the reasons we have a concept of race at all.

Show them a Greek and an Iraqi and I bet they get pretty confused. One is "white" and the other is "arab," even though they look extremely similar, and often interchangable.

Greeks and Iraqis are both Caucasian, which kind of shows that I am right.

Which Africans, dude?

Are you talking about the milkie, large-lipped Africans of the North, of the pitch-black, thin-lipped Africans of the East?

The 4'6" African Pigmies, of the 6'5" Kenyans?

When you can tell me that, I'll start caring what you think.

Go with West Africans, from the old "slave coast." You know, the ones that would have ancestors in common with today's African Americans.

 

[iangb]

This (bolded) is where your argument fails. You're presenting a speculative premise which was never part of my original argument. I never made the claim that others would interpret what is "natural" and turn it in to any moral claim.

You must be missing the same brain cells as Tucker, where you can't grasp the concept of neutrality.

Something can be either good, bad, or neutral.

Something can indeed be good, bad, or neutral - and Darwinism, since it makes no moral claims, should not influence anyone's moral beleifs. As such, if I believe that intervening against Hitler is 'good', then Darwinism would not change my mind and lead me to believe that intervening against Hitler was 'neutral'. However, Social Darwinism would change my mind in such a way.

I think I'm starting to understand your main malfunction.

OK, here's another way to think about it that might just click with you.

If Darwin does not make a moral claim, and Hitler similarly does not make a moral claim but acts in a way that is in accordance to natural law as outlined by Darwin, can you say that he (Hitler) is either good or bad? No. To do so would be natural fallacy. You can make no judgement either way on that premise.

Therefore, neither Darwin nor Hitler can be judged as evil based on the "naturalness" of their world views. You can, however, discern good from evil by the end results.

However, Hitler did make a moral claim. Social Darwinism in general makes the moral claims that allowing 'survival of the fittest' to happen is either morally good or, at best, morally neutral. Darwinism makes no moral claims at all. As such, social Darwinism is fallacious.

 

[Somerville]

Something can indeed be good, bad, or neutral - and Darwinism, since it makes no moral claims, should not influence anyone's moral beleifs. As such, if I believe that intervening against Hitler is 'good', then Darwinism would not change my mind and lead me to believe that intervening against Hitler was 'neutral'. However, Social Darwinism would change my mind in such a way.

Please - can we stop using the word "Darwinism". It has been twisted and manipulated by the anti-reality crowd to the extent that they throw it around in a context that would indicate acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is the modern day equivalent of some ancient cult. Unfortunately, as with too many other words and phrases in our modern society, even those who understand and accept the reality of the ToE, will use the word without understanding just how the True Believers 'hear' the word.

Originally Posted by Peter Grimm I think I'm starting to understand your main malfunction.

OK, here's another way to think about it that might just click with you.

If Darwin does not make a moral claim, and Hitler similarly does not make a moral claim but acts in a way that is in accordance to natural law as outlined by Darwin, can you say that he (Hitler) is either good or bad? No. To do so would be natural fallacy. You can make no judgement either way on that premise.

Therefore, neither Darwin nor Hitler can be judged as evil based on the "naturalness" of their world views. You can, however, discern good from evil by the end results.

However, Hitler did make a moral claim. Social Darwinism in general makes the moral claims that allowing 'survival of the fittest' to happen is either morally good or, at best, morally neutral. Darwinism makes no moral claims at all. As such, social Darwinism is fallacious.

Social Darwinism is more than simply allowing for "survival of the fittest", in its most extreme form it actively promoted the removal of those defined as "less fit" from society

Also, the actions of the Nazis were never in accord with natural law as described in the Origin of Species, instead they were crimes against nature and humanity. There is no natural equivalent to the atrocities committed by mankind over the centuries.

For those who wish to blame Charles Darwin for the actions of the Nazis, you are doing nothing more than illustrating your ignorance of the history of Christian anti-Semitism since about the 5th Century.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

For those who wish to blame Charles Darwin for the actions of the Nazis, you are doing nothing more than illustrating your ignorance of the history of Christian anti-Semitism since about the 5th Century.

Isn't this ignoring the popularisation of " scientific anti-semitism" in Europe at the time, and the notion that they were moving away from the barberism and super stition of religious antisemitism?

I only bring this up because you are speaking about people being ignorent of history. But the movement towards more "rational" of bigotry were pretty key and helped shape things like the Nuremberg laws, from my understanding

 

[Somerville]

Isn't this ignoring the popularisation of " scientific anti-semitism" in Europe at the time, and the notion that they were moving away from the barberism and super stition of religious antisemitism?

I only bring this up because you are speaking about people being ignorent of history. But the movement towards more "rational" of bigotry were pretty key and helped shape things like the Nuremberg laws, from my understanding

This is a good point but as with so many aspects of how we think about 'stuff' in the modern world. I think you are missing the point - a little bit. It's one reason us history weirdos constantly bring up the value of studying history and how so much of the past affects our modern-day world.

The bigotry was there, not only in German society but thru out much of the western world when Origin of Species hit the bookstores. As has been noted, it didn't take long for some to misuse the concept in ways that were antithetical to Darwin's central premise. So, by the time of the Nuremberg Laws passage, those who held irrational prejudices now had "scientific" support for their hatred. As a consequence, those who deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution attempt to smear it and actual scientific knowledge with the taint of Nazism, as if the Nazis wouldn't have killed the Jews and Gypsys and gays and Poles and Russians, if they hadn't had the support of "Darwinism"


The hatred was already present and as the populace became more educated, irrational but strongly-held beliefs demanded some type of rationalisation. Definitely not a "chicken and the egg, which came first" thing. It was more "I hate X but I don't have a good reason. Oh look! A 'scientist' has a reason for my hatred"

 

[Tucker Case]

You must be missing the same brain cells as Tucker, where you can't grasp the concept of neutrality.

It's one thing to play this idiotic game of pretend that you've been playing, it's another thing to be too much of a coward to man up and accept the challenge you've been presented.

You behaving in a cowardly fashion does not mean I am missing brain cells. In fact, the missing body parts in such a scenario would be found in a "sack" or a "bag", not a head.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

This is a good point but as with so many aspects of how we think about 'stuff' in the modern world. I think you are missing the point - a little bit. It's one reason us history weirdos constantly bring up the value of studying history and how so much of the past affects our modern-day world.

well, that seems needlessly condescending (especially considering the general quality of your posts)

The bigotry was there, not only in German society but thru out much of the western world when Origin of Species hit the bookstores. As has been noted, it didn't take long for some to misuse the concept in ways that were antithetical to Darwin's central premise. So, by the time of the Nuremberg Laws passage, those who held irrational prejudices now had "scientific" support for their hatred.

Yeah, which was my point: that the Nazi's adopted views specifically meant to move their bigotry away from schools of superstition like Christianity.

The hatred was already present and as the populace became more educated, irrational but strongly-held beliefs demanded some type of rationalisation. Definitely not a "chicken and the egg, which came first" thing. It was more "I hate X but I don't have a good reason. Oh look! A 'scientist' has a reason for my hatred"

I never asserted Darwin was responsible for it or such was a logical conclusion to his, or any serious theory of evolution.

 

[Tucker Case]

To do so would be natural fallacy. You can make no judgement either way on that premise.

Exactly my point. It cannot be used as a premise with regard to the intervention dilemma (a dillema which requires one to reach a "good" or "bad" conclusion) without engagin in the fallacy of appeal to nature.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I have been saying.

This is, of course, assuming that you are not making the phenomenally retarded argument that total irrelevance to an issue = neutrality toward that issue.

That's as logical as saying that somebody who likes the flavor of fried mackeral would be neutral in the face of deciding to save their child from a marauding band of hermit crabs.

 

[Somerville]

well, that seems needlessly condescending (especially considering the general quality of your posts)



Yeah, which was my point: that the Nazi's adopted views specifically meant to move their bigotry away from schools of superstition like Christianity.




I never asserted Darwin was responsible for it or such was a logical conclusion to his, or any serious theory of evolution.

My apologies, I did not mean to be condescending

I know you didn't blame Darwin, I was trying to say that the Nazis used what they considered to be 'scientific and rational' reasoning to justify actions that they would have probably committed without any so-called scientific support. As you note, there wasn't any real scientific basis for their actions but they used something they called 'scientific' as additional support. Much as creationists are trying to use something they call scientific, Intelligent Design, to support their faith in a creator deity.

Just because an advocate for any type of irrational belief, calls their reasoning 'scientific', don't make it so