Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Social Darwinism and World War I

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by phank View Post
    OK, what do YOU mean by it?
    Phank,

    It's Jiffy Pop time!



    K54

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      With the above you are definitely giving Rogue06 a bona
      fide run for the Straw Man of the Decade Award.

      http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_artillery_projectile.htm]”[/url]




      If I've made a mistake here then it was in assuming that you're able
      to connect a few dots. You know, connect what has happened,
      what has been said and do it all with HONESTY. My guess is that
      it's that last part that is tripping you up.

      Gawk at this - it was in a presentation of mine from several years ago.
      Think you can 'connect the dots' here without hand-holding?

      [ATTACH=CONFIG]1887[/ATTACH]

      You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.

      Jorge
      The Science of Ballistics: Mathematics Serving the Dark Side



      Search for and count the word “Newton”, Jorge. But do it with your eyes open.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by rwatts View Post
        The Science of Ballistics: Mathematics Serving the Dark Side



        Search for and count the word “Newton”, Jorge. But do it with your eyes open.

        Have you been 'sipping too much of the brew', Roland?

        Jorge

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          I went back and reread the OP.
          That's good but unfortunately (from what you subsequently wrote) it didn't help.

          I don't disagree that people have abused the ToE to justify a species of morality or ethics.
          That's your first mistake. People "abuse" and "misrepresent" just about anything so that's not the point. The real point is that a LOGICAL RESULT of the foundational Darwinian Principle of "survival of the fittest" justifies the atrocities of wars, genocide, euthanasia, abortion, etc ... etc. If you are unable to see that then I don't know what to say - it's just basic logic.

          One mistake you made was to write "scientific"--it should be "pseudo-scientific" instead.
          That's your second mistake. No, I did not err as you claim. Just examine the history and what a huge number of PhD biologists (past and present) have said. Are you saying that they are all mistaken?


          Another mistake by you: I think some readers of this thread are evolutionists, yet they are NOT Darwinist in the sense of Darwinism.
          That would be your third strike. What exists today -- call it Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthesis, Evolution Theory, or any other name that suits your fancy -- is all "Darwinism" in the sense that it is founded squarely upon the foundational Darwinian Principal of descent with modification and the survival of privileged/favored species. Heck, it's there in black and white in the title of Darwin's book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". It is THAT foundational Principle that serves as direct, logical and scientific justification for the previously-listed atrocities. Evolution is "science" - isn't that what is promoted everywhere?

          Now, if you're one of those 'historical revisionists' and/or one of those that lives in denial even in the face of overwhelming evidence then accept my apologies and be on your way.

          If, on the other hand, you are an honest man then reflect on this and see how many things that are going on today are explained by this nefarious reality.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            [ATTACH=CONFIG]1890[/ATTACH]

            You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.

            Jorge
            Truthseeker et al. .......... examine the above as just one of endless examples.

            Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
            Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.

            Jorge
            Attached Files
            Last edited by Jorge; 08-30-2014, 09:58 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              With the above you are definitely giving Rogue06 a bona
              fide run for the Straw Man of the Decade Award.




              If I've made a mistake here then it was in assuming that you're able
              to connect a few dots. You know, connect what has happened,
              what has been said and do it all with HONESTY. My guess is that
              it's that last part that is tripping you up.

              Gawk at this - it was in a presentation of mine from several years ago.
              Think you can 'connect the dots' here without hand-holding?

              [ATTACH=CONFIG]1887[/ATTACH]

              You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.

              Jorge
              Since you brought up eugenics (here as well as earlier), perhaps we should look at what Charles Darwin himself thought of such thinking. The simple fact is that he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he rejected Galton's eugenical ideas outright.

              In referencing his half-cousin Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics" shortly after Darwin's death) and his views in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Darwin wrote that:

              Source: Descent of Man, chapter 21


              "On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."

              © Copyright Original Source



              This makes clear that Darwin was unequivocally not a supporter of things like coerced sterilization and his belief that rapid multiplication is good for evolution (in fact, he didn't even like the idea of birth control) and "our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means" is the exact opposite of what the eugenics movement advocated. He wanted "open competition for all men."

              Further Darwin also wrote in the "The Descent of Man" that:

              Source: Descent of Man, chapter 5


              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 could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

              © Copyright Original Source



              IOW, if anything Darwin saw eugenical thinking as being an overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature." The fact is that due to their disagreements over this and other things (including some of Darwin's ideas concerning evolution) he and Galton drifted apart.

              Now, to add an additional point, when Darwin wrote to Galton after the latter published his "Hereditary Genius" he said that,

              Source: Letter to Francis Galton, December 23, 1869


              "you have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference."

              © Copyright Original Source



              Hopefully you notice that Darwin explicitly listed himself an opponent of Galton’s ideas.

              Furthermore, in your attempt to link Darwin's Theory of Evolution to eugenics you are overlooking the deep roots that it had in the Christian community (where it was supported by both many liberal and conservative church leaders). Recently the United Methodist Church issued an apology for their support of eugenics.

              Take a look at Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" for more details about the connection. Ironically, a group you have declared to not be True Christians™, the Catholic Church, was at the forefront of the anti-eugenics movement both here in the U.S. and abroad although some of their clergy still supported eugenics.

              Finally, it should not be overlooked that a couple of the self-styled "Team of Ten" who founded the modern YEC movement remained enthusiastic and vocal advocates for eugenics and the selective breeding of humans decades after the end of WWII when the civilized world, repulsed by the practice, had utterly rejected and repudiated it.
              Last edited by rogue06; 08-30-2014, 10:03 AM.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Thanks, Rogue!

                If this is not the knock-out punch to Jorgian YEC misrepresentation of the truth, I don't know what is.

                K54

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Since you brought up eugenics (here as well as earlier), perhaps we should look at what Charles Darwin himself thought of such thinking. The simple fact is that he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he rejected Galton's eugenical ideas outright.

                  In referencing his half-cousin Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics" shortly after Darwin's death) and his views in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Darwin wrote that:

                  Source: Descent of Man, chapter 21


                  "On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  This makes clear that Darwin was unequivocally not a supporter of things like coerced sterilization and his belief that rapid multiplication is good for evolution (in fact, he didn't even like the idea of birth control) and "our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means" is the exact opposite of what the eugenics movement advocated. He wanted "open competition for all men."

                  Further Darwin also wrote in the "The Descent of Man" that:

                  Source: Descent of Man, chapter 5


                  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 could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  IOW, if anything Darwin saw eugenical thinking as being an overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature." The fact is that due to their disagreements over this and other things (including some of Darwin's ideas concerning evolution) he and Galton drifted apart.

                  Now, to add an additional point, when Darwin wrote to Galton after the latter published his "Hereditary Genius" he said that,

                  Source: Letter to Francis Galton, December 23, 1869


                  "you have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference."

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Hopefully you notice that Darwin explicitly listed himself an opponent of Galtonís ideas.

                  Furthermore, in your attempt to link Darwin's Theory of Evolution to eugenics you are overlooking the deep roots that it had in the Christian community (where it was supported by both many liberal and conservative church leaders). Recently the United Methodist Church issued an apology for their support of eugenics.

                  Take a look at Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" for more details about the connection. Ironically, a group you have declared to not be True Christiansô, the Catholic Church, was at the forefront of the anti-eugenics movement both here in the U.S. and abroad although some of their clergy still supported eugenics.

                  Finally, it should not be overlooked that a couple of the self-styled "Team of Ten" who founded the modern YEC movement remained enthusiastic and vocal advocates for eugenics and the selective breeding of humans decades after the end of WWII when the civilized world, repulsed by the practice, had utterly rejected and repudiated it.
                  If you're as smart as you believe yourself to be, you certainly don't want to be quoting Darwin on issues related to Eugenics. In many places Darwin was quite explicit about his firm, deep-rooted beliefs that there were superior races and even superior sub-groups within races. For instance, he openly expressed his belief of the superiority of males over females.

                  BTW, I'd pay a pretty penny to see Darwin in the middle of a militant NOW meeting. Bwahahaha

                  Be more thorough and less self-serving when you research stuff about your hero.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    Thanks, Rogue!

                    If this is not the knock-out punch to Jorgian YEC misrepresentation of the truth, I don't know what is.

                    K54
                    It would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
                    can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      If you're as smart as you believe yourself to be, you certainly don't want to be quoting Darwin on issues related to Eugenics. In many places Darwin was quite explicit about his firm, deep-rooted beliefs that there were superior races and even superior sub-groups within races. For instance, he openly expressed his belief of the superiority of males over females.

                      BTW, I'd pay a pretty penny to see Darwin in the middle of a militant NOW meeting. Bwahahaha

                      Be more thorough and less self-serving when you research stuff about your hero.

                      Jorge
                      Rogue just did and demolished your puerile and intellectually dishonest argument.

                      Do we have to light a match for you to see the Sun??

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        It would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
                        can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.

                        Jorge
                        The Black Knight refuses to admit defeat.

                        K54

                        monty-python-limbless-black-knight2.jpg

                        Comment


                        • Darwin often referred to the "so-called races" and said there were larger differences within each race than between each race. He tended to mock those who kept dividing mankind into different races.

                          Try again.
                          Last edited by rogue06; 08-30-2014, 11:24 AM.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            Thanks, Rogue!

                            If this is not the knock-out punch to Jorgian YEC misrepresentation of the truth, I don't know what is.

                            K54
                            It would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
                            can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.

                            "ďAt some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.Ē Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.


                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jorge
                              t would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
                              can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.

                              Jorge
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              Rogue just did and demolished your puerile and intellectually dishonest argument.

                              Do we have to light a match for you to see the Sun??

                              K54
                              Pre-Darwin "Christian" Europeans had pretty much wiped out "savage races" without any reference to the theory of evolution.

                              Anyway, you with ossified brain -- the putative misapplication of a scientific theory does not obviate the science.

                              Abusus usum non tollit.

                              How many matches do we need to light for ya?

                              K54

                              P.S.
                              Originally posted by Jorge quoting Chuck
                              "“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.
                              Here I disagree with Chuck (without considering the context of your quote mine.)

                              Actually one could argue that this putative attempt at "extermination" has created an even more savage group of "races" -- and a LOT more populous.
                              Last edited by klaus54; 08-30-2014, 11:46 AM. Reason: p.s.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Darwin often referred to the "so-called races" and said there were larger differences within each race than between each race. He tended to mock those who kept dividing mankind into different races.

                                Try again.
                                Arguing with ignorance is not a true debate, it is an educating exercise.

                                From my presentation dating back to 2009:

                                "Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed."
                                Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man: Sub-species.


                                "... since he [man] attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more appropriately called, sub-species." Ibid.

                                Darwin believed that the different human races reflect divergence, not commonality, and so he wrote:
                                "Some of these, for instance the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species”. Ibid.


                                “So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.” Ibid.

                                Henceforth keep in mind that, for Darwin, ‘lower race’ was equivalent to a ‘sub-species’.


                                “Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius."
                                Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 19.


                                “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. We may also infer … that if men are capable of decided eminence over women in many subjects, the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” Ibid

                                “It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” Ibid


                                Now, if you want more education then sign up for the course like everyone else.

                                In short: a wise man would not wish to be associated with Darwin - he was a P - I - G !!!

                                “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.


                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Barry Desborough, 07-30-2021, 10:19 AM
                                16 responses
                                80 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-27-2021, 09:39 AM
                                27 responses
                                104 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-25-2021, 08:57 AM
                                0 responses
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-23-2021, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                19 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X