No one who is knowledgeable and honest would (or should) claim that Darwinism causes wars and the atrocities committed in those wars.
The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.
In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.
Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/
You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.
Jorge
The appropriate claim - with tons of historical evidence to support it - is that Darwinism may be, has been and most certainly will be used to justify wars including the atrocities therein. What's more, these "atrocities" are no longer regarded as "bad". No, not at all. No more than a lion ripping apart a baby zebra would be considered an "atrocity". Rather, those "atrocities" are now regarded as a "good thing", a part of a "natural order" where the weak serve the needs of the strong ... where the strong ("fittest") ultimately replace the weak ("less fit"). This is "survival of the fittest" - the calling card of Darwinism from its inception to the present day.
In short, this has been and continues to be the "scientific justification" for why a "superior" (more fit) race or culture may (and should!) conquer all other "inferior" (less fit) races or cultures. It's a 'Natural Principle' - the foundation of Darwinism - that allegedly "explains" why species emerge and why species disappear. What applies to biological species has been "scientifically" projected to apply equally to social-political-economic groups of people.
Here's a 14-minute video about this: http://darwintohitler.com/
You certainly have the right to disagree with the thesis here, just be sure to express your disagreement in a rational and coherent fashion. Blind, irrational and fanatical adherence to the religious ideology of Darwinism is not allowed.
Jorge
Comment