Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Darwinism Has Led To The Holocaust And Genocide Of Blacks

[Shadow Wolf]

You tell us this while the Left is strangling free speech on every university campus where they can get away with it, and political correctness does the same in the media. Isn't freedom of speech always the first right to fall?

As a student, I have yet to "push the bar too far." Harshly criticizing religion, promoting drugs, using "filthy" language. I even had to read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Hell's Angels by Hunter S. Thompson in two of my English classes, and both books are "full blast" of the "bad things" they expose the reader to. At an honor's student symposium, I presented on the positive morality in South Park, stated throughout that the show is loaded with content many will find offensive, and I was runner up in consideration for best content/presentation. (I also found it can provoke some rather strong responses when you dare suggest to certain people that the show has anything good about it.)
Of course I've seen stories of protests and stuff, and people not wanting Bill Maher to speak at a commencement, but I've criticized the Bible and Quran for pretty much the same reasons and pretty much just as harshly and my professor asked me out for a beer. So I wouldn't say this "strangling free speech on every campus" is your average campus experience.

 

[siti]

What Darwin support of slavery?

Exactly! The preposterous suggestion that Darwin based his theory of evolution on the idea that blacks were fit only for slavery in Victorian Britain (notwithstanding the fact that Darwin's entire family were ardent abolitionists and that slavery was illegal in Britain long before Queen Victoria's accession) was the subject of the OP. How the hell did you get from that to the supposed "Left" conspiracy to corrupt the university system, quell free speech and sack TV personalities? It definitely suggests a cognitive disconnect.

The rest of your post is denial and name calling.

What did I deny and what names did I call anyone?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

BTW, fake news is news which is broadcast knowing its a lie.

It wouldn't say it always has to necessarily be a lie. Sometimes the truth can have the light shown on it from a different angle, and though no lies are told, not even by omission, and still be fake. Such as the news of all the deadly viruses and bacteria and nasties that are supposed to get us......but they never do. Sure some people get them, but not even Ebola caused the "ZOMG!" level of panic the news was priming us for.

 

[james bond]

I wouldn't associate the two so directly, there were obviously many factors, and I don't think that sort of argument helps people view Darwinism more objectively/ scientifically...

But it is unavoidably part of the equation, of how society changed it's views on the inherent 'value' of people. Eugenics programs were not limited to race, e.g. in Canada, scoring below a certain IQ could justify sterilization not so long ago. i think that when we discard the idea of an equal God given value for every human life, it's inevitable that this perception of 'inequality' will cause problems.

I'm not sure if Darwinism was more pseudoscience than science. For example, what drives natural selection or the diversity of species? We have found out that it's interbreeding or creating hybrids, specialized breeding (selecting the best traits and breeding or artificial insemination), speciation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection. Which ones of these are Darwinism?

Where he defined humans was in The Descent of Man book. Can we eliminate the racist idea that our common ancestor was the ape? Bipedalism isn't that great when swinging through trees and walking on fours were more efficient. Using fossils as evidence is too scant. How about dolphins? I think they're the smartest mammals next to humans.

 

[james bond]

What would you do if I made a thread where I showed how chattel slavery was based almost entirely in Christian theology?

Go ahead and start a thread.

 

[james bond]

In other news from the 25th century:-
The stone age caveman identified as the inventor of fire has been whisked forward in time to stand in trial for the millions of deaths by fire over the hundred thousand years since his invention. The rather shabby individual is seen to vigorously grunt his innocence by pointing at the all barbecued mammoth leg-bone he had been using his fire to cook his last lunch....

A global fire is suppose to be how all life will be extinguished from earth for the last time according to the Bible. It's probably the best way to destroy carbon-based life forms. The big ashes to ashes comes true. God destroyed everything except for a select few using a global flood before this. We know today through experience, statistics and science that a flood has killed the most humans, plants and animals. We know fire will destroy carbon-based life forms to carbon again. How did people in the first century know this? Were they more advanced than we give them credit for?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

As a student, I have yet to "push the bar too far." Harshly criticizing religion, promoting drugs, using "filthy" language. I even had to read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Hell's Angels by Hunter S. Thompson in two of my English classes, and both books are "full blast" of the "bad things" they expose the reader to. At an honor's student symposium, I presented on the positive morality in South Park, stated throughout that the show is loaded with content many will find offensive, and I was runner up in consideration for best content/presentation. (I also found it can provoke some rather strong responses when you dare suggest to certain people that the show has anything good about it.)
Of course I've seen stories of protests and stuff, and people not wanting Bill Maher to speak at a commencement, but I've criticized the Bible and Quran for pretty much the same reasons and pretty much just as harshly and my professor asked me out for a beer. So I wouldn't say this "strangling free speech on every campus" is your average campus experience.

Well of course not, you're toeing the party line in your examples. Try criticizing global warming, Obamacare, illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, socialism (especially pointing out that fascism & Nazism are socialism), the Democratic Party, having Clarence Thomas speak on campus...or (God forbid) suggest a study to see the differences in intelligence between male and female mathematicians as the president of Harvard did, and they'll invite you out for a beer only to pour it over your head.

 

[Darkstorn]

(especially pointing out that fascism & Nazism are socialism)

You are delusional. Fascism is nationalism, and authoritarian in nature. It has NOTHING to do with socialism.

AND everyone knows that claiming that the nazis are socialistic is believing their own rhetoric... They CLAIM that they are socialistic. You are believing them.

Oh and still: You are the only person i have EVER witnessed ANYWHERE to make the claim that nazis are left wing. Or that fascism is left wing. And the sad part is that you somehow believe that making such insane claims somehow strengthens your argument... Your stance is plain and simple: Absurd.

/E: Can you, by any chance, make an argument where you don't automatically imply that everyone who doesn't share your particular political stance has something to do with nazis? It makes your "side" look like dumbasses.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not sure if Darwinism was more pseudoscience than science. For example, what drives natural selection or the diversity of species? We have found out that it's interbreeding or creating hybrids, specialized breeding (selecting the best traits and breeding or artificial insemination), speciation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection. Which ones of these are Darwinism?

Where he defined humans was in The Descent of Man book. Can we eliminate the racist idea that our common ancestor was the ape? Bipedalism isn't that great when swinging through trees and walking on fours were more efficient. Using fossils as evidence is too scant. How about dolphins? I think they're the smartest mammals next to humans.

Yes Darwinism is very 'adaptable' itself! Just as man made global cooling can become man made global warming and vice versa, overnight if needed. When there's not a whole of empirical evidence to anchor anything specific to, it leaves a lot of wiggle room. And that can be dangerous as you note, it obviously was used to some extent to justify a perception of inherently superior races in some cases.

 

[sayak83]

I'm not sure if Darwinism was more pseudoscience than science. For example, what drives natural selection or the diversity of species? We have found out that it's interbreeding or creating hybrids, specialized breeding (selecting the best traits and breeding or artificial insemination), speciation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection. Which ones of these are Darwinism?

Where he defined humans was in The Descent of Man book. Can we eliminate the racist idea that our common ancestor was the ape? Bipedalism isn't that great when swinging through trees and walking on fours were more efficient. Using fossils as evidence is too scant. How about dolphins? I think they're the smartest mammals next to humans.

They were prophets!!!
OR
They simply extrapolated from the devastation an out of control fire causes to villages and towns and forests before the invention of the fire brigade...

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes Darwinism is very 'adaptable' itself! Just as man made global cooling can become man made global warming and vice versa, overnight if needed. When there's not a whole of empirical evidence to anchor anything specific to, it leaves a lot of wiggle room. And that can be dangerous as you note, it obviously was used to some extent to justify a perception of inherently superior races in some cases.

Everything is dangerous.
If someone wants to believe their race is better than someone else's, they could use
evolution....or Judaism (cuz they're the "chosen people")....or Islam (cuz everyone
else deserves to die)....or Xianity (cuz they have The Truth)....or.....you get the picture.
And don't get me going on physics, chemistry, engineering, etc....they're all great tools
to improve mankind's lot....or kill vast herds of humans.
Such things aren't inherently moral or immoral.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Everything is dangerous.
If someone wants to believe their race is better than someone else's, they could use
evolution....or Judaism (cuz they're the "chosen people")....or Islam (cuz everyone
else deserves to die)....or Xianity (cuz they have The Truth)....or.....you get the picture.
And don't get me going on physics, chemistry, engineering, etc....they're all great tools
to improve mankind's lot....or kill vast herds of humans.
Such things aren't inherently moral or immoral.

I agree there, I don't think Darwinism is inherently immoral, it was a reasonable guess at explaining the diversity of life (at least 150 years ago it was!)

But the most dangerous belief, is the one that does not recognize itself as such, which rejects personal faith and claims absolute unquestionable fact- any free thinking person who does not share the belief becomes intellectually inferior by definition- you get the picture

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked

(Dawkins)

 

[jonathan180iq]

Ray Comforts of the world unite!

There's yet another thread in the Evolution vs. Creationism forum that is founded on a grossly misinformed understanding of Evolutionary Theory. This time we're talking about those dastardly printed words found in The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man which, just so you know, play virtually no part in modern understanding of the science... Why it's a constant target of literalist Christians I still don't get.

I really wish you creationists would at least learn the basics of biology before attempting to "score one for the big man upstairs." There's just so much wrong with so much of these conversations that I don't even know where to start.

 

[columbus]

This time we're talking about those dastardly printed words found in The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man which, just so you know, play virtually no part in modern understanding of the science... Why it's a constant target of literalist Christians I still don't get.

Because it's easier to create fallacious arguments against a 150 year old book than the mountains of research and evidence that has accumulated since then. That evidence modifies and supports the basic premise of speciation through small modifications over time. But becoming familiar with it wouldn't be as quick and easy as an ad hominem attack on Darwin himself.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Try criticizing global warming

Why would I do that?

Obamacare

I have.

illegal immigration

I haven't, but I've heard others do it.

Islamic terrorism

Check.

socialism

Considering those socialist roads are what I take to get to school, why would I criticize it? Especially considering that I promote Socialism? But I've heard some criticize it, and it wasn't the end of their academic career and there were no repercussions.

(especially pointing out that fascism & Nazism are socialism)

Fascism is not socialism and the National Socialists are but one version of Socialism, one that tends to not be very popular among Socialists.

the Democratic Party

I not only criticized them, I told one professor that going to Democratic Party meetings would require me to become a Democrat, which is something I'm just not willing to do.

having Clarence Thomas speak on campus

Why would I criticize that?

suggest a study to see the differences in intelligence between male and female mathematicians

The more controlled the study, the less difference. It actually gets studied quite abit.
And to give you a more recent example, just this last Monday I criticized Priests/Pastors who who only tell their flocks of the good passages of the Bible while completely ignoring the passages where God commanded the unborn be ripped from the womb. I've also called religion the "true nihilism" a few times.
Short of being an inflammatory ******* and/or intentionally mean, I don't know what else to do to try to provoke this "wrath of the college free speech censors."

 

[jonathan180iq]

Because it's easier to create fallacious arguments against a 150 year old book than the mountains of research and evidence that has accumulated since then. That evidence modifies and supports the basic premise of speciation through small modifications over time. But becoming familiar with it wouldn't be as quick and easy as an ad hominem attack on Darwin himself.
Tom

Right. It's just ignorance- plain and simple...

 

[james bond]

Is there no limit to the misrepresentation and abuse of Darwin and of the Theory of Evolution?

This thread belongs to the jokes area.

The facts show Jews and blacks were killed by people who used Darwinism to justify their prejudices. Just read The Descent of Man and Darwin was racist and mostly wrong about his theories on evolution. Fossil evidence is scant. It's not something to use to conclude we descended from apes. We should not be celebrating Darwin Day anymore.

 

[james bond]

TLDR; If anyone does anything bad while believing in evolution it was Darwin's fault, so evolution is wrong.

I'm not saying all of evolution is wrong, but parts of Darwinism is -- such as we descended from apes. There isn't enough fossil evidence to show that. Furthermore, the concept is racist. We need to understand that there was scientific racism before Darwin came along and Darwin's ideas fueled that even more to the point of genocide. We shouldn't put Darwin on a pedestal.

 

[LuisDantas]

The facts show Jews and blacks were killed by people who used Darwinism to justify their prejudices.

"Used" is not really the proper verb to use there. "Misrepresented" is a definite step in towarda accuracy there, although it still falls way short.

It is simply not reasonable to blame Darwinism for gross lies presented on its stead.

Just read The Descent of Man and Darwin was racist and mostly wrong about his theories on evolution.

Irrelevant in at least three different ways.

1. Darwin was not a prophet or even an ideologue of any kind.

2. The theory of evolution never relied on his findings. It is in fact because it would be brought to light regardless of his preferences that he gave up and finally revealed those findings.

3. Of course he was "mostly wrong". He was the pioneer. That his work was corrected and improved on shows that he had something worth listening to there.

Fossil evidence is scant. It's not something to use to conclude we descended from apes. We should not be celebrating Darwin Day anymore.

Don't waste my time with your lies and misrepresentations, please.

 

[james bond]

This thread, like your other one, is a smoke screen.

Because you find the truth uncomfortable, you are attempting to deflect the horrors of 19-20th century Christendom from it's true roots in religion. You want to pretend that race and orientation bigotry came from Darwin's fledgling efforts at science instead of Scripture.
Well, the fact remains that the primitive ethics and worldview that resulted in the slavery and genocide and oppression were firmly rooted in the teachings of Christianity and the orientation bigotry still is.
This thread is a big lie from a religionist.
Tom

The facts are Darwinism led to social Darwinism and fascism by the Nazis. The social Darwinists, Nazis and Planned Parenthood did not use Scripture to kill millions of Jews and blacks. They weren't Bible thumpers. They used the ideas promoted by Darwin to fuel scientific racism and commit these atrocious crimes. We have letters from Francis Galton to Nazis. We also have his concept of negative eugenics.

Origins of Eugenics: From Sir Francis Galton to Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 - Eugenics: Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Virginia, Eugenics & Buck v. Bell

In the US, we even had a civil war over the issue of equality and slavery. It seems you are the one uncomfortable about admitting Darwin was wrong. I didn't write the things he did in The Descent of Man. I keep hearing about blaming Christianity for it, but see no thread nor any evidence.

You stated that there is new evidence that came out of Darwinism, too. We can talk about those, too. We'll find out that the mountain of evidence is just atheist-speak to promote the ToE. Fossil evidence is too scant to conclude anything except these creatures existed and how they lived.

Basically, this is what today's ToE or your mountain of evidence is: