• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

TX Lt. Gov. Blames El Paso Shooting on Not Letting Kids “Pray in Our Schools”

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
"Hitler and Stalin did what they did as Darwinists." - @BilliardsBall
I categorically reject anything by Weikart due to many instances of his shoddy scholarship:

"Weikart is best known for his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany.[24][25] The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, funded the book's research.[26] The academic community has been widely critical of the book.[4][13] Regarding the thesis of Weikart's book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards wrote that Hitler was not a Darwinian and criticized Weikart for trying to undermine evolution.[27] Richards said that there was no evidence that Hitler read Darwin, and that some influencers of Nazism such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were opposed to evolution.[27]"

But I do thank you for linking the Roberts article, for it would appear that you did not read it, for it concludes, any emphases mine:


"Countless conservative religious and political tracts have attempted to undermine
Darwinian evolutionary theory by arguing that it had been endorsed by Hitler
and led to
the biological ideas responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. These dogmatically driven
accounts have been abetted by more reputable scholars who have written books with
titles like From Darwin to Hitler [was that not written by your hero, Weikart the righty propagandist?] . Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s great German disciple, is presumed to have virtually packed his sidecar with Darwinian theory and monistic philosophy and delivered their toxic message directly to Berchtesgaden or at least,individuals like Daniel Gasman, Stephen Jay
Gould, and Larry Arnhardt have so argued. Many more scholars are ready to apply the casual, but nonetheless, telling sobriquet to Hitler of "social Darwinian.” In this essay I have maintained these assumptions simply cannot be sustained after a careful
examination of the evidence.

To be considered a Darwinian at least three propositions would have to be
endorsed: that the human races exhibit a hierarchy of more advanced and less
advanced peoples; that the transmutation of species has occurred over long
stretches of time and that human beings have descended from ape -like ancestors; and that
natural selection — as Darwin understood it — is the principle means by which
transmutation occurs. Hitler and the Nazi biologists I have considered certainly claimed
a hierarchy of races, but that idea far antedated the publication of Darwin’s theory and
was hardly unique to it.
There is no evidence linking Hitler’s presumption of such a
hierarchy and Darwin’s conception
. Moreover, Hitler explicitly denied the descent of
species, utterly rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape - like predecessors. And most of the Nazi scientists I have cited likewise opposed that aspect of Darwin’s theory. Hitler did speak of the “struggle for existence,” but likely derived that language from his friend and supporter Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an avowed anti-Darwinian. Moreover, by Hitler’s own testimony, his anti-Semitism had political, not scientific or biological roots; there is no evidence that he had any special feeling for these scientific questions. And in any case, remote and abstract scientific conceptions can hardly provide the motivation for extreme political acts and desperate measures.
Among Nazi biologists, at least those publishing in an official organ of the Party,
Mendelian genetics and de Vriesian mutation theory were favored, both vying at the
beginning of the twentieth century to replace Darwinian theory. Moreover, the
perceived mechanistic character of Darwinism stood in opposition to the more vitalistic
conceptions of Nazi biologists and that of Hitler — or at least vitalism accords with the
drift of his thought about race. Finally, though his own religious views remain uncertain, Hitler often enough claimed religious justification for racial attitudes, assuming thereby the kind of theism usually pitted against Darwinian theory.
If “Social Darwinian” is a concept with definite meaning, it would have to refer to
individuals who apply evolutionary theory to human beings in social settings.
There is little difficulty, then, in denominating Herbert Spencer or Ernst Haeckel a social
Darwinian. With that understanding, Darwin himself also would have to be so called.
But how could one possibly ascribe that term to Hitler, who rejected evolutionary
theory?
Only in the very loosest sense, when the phrase has no relationship to the
theory of Charles Darwin, might it be used for Hitler.
In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences,neglecting altogether more straight -forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence.
Yet, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay, there is an obvious sense in which my
own claims must be moot. Even if Hitler could recite the Origin of Speciesby heart and referred to Darwin as his scientific hero, that would not have the slightest bearing on the validity of Darwinian theory or the moral standing of its author.
The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay its title is a very loud and unequivocal No!


So, yes, I accept your own reference as proof that Hitler was not a Darwinian or follower of Darwin, and thank you for enlightening me on yet another act of desperation and dishonesty undertaken by MANY creationist and right-wing extremist religionists in their sad, pathetic efforts to employ fallacious and dishonest methods to try to prop up their own failing ideology.

Thank you again @BilliardsBall for making so clear an admission. Very brave of you to have undermined and dare I say, debunked one of your own mantras.




Ah, yes, so that totally proves that Stalin did what he did in Darwin's name. Excellent scholarship.

Please tell me that this 'academic conference' you are chairing will not be on any of the topics you broach on this forum?

I'm offended, since I’m a firm Darwinist! Black and women are inferior to Caucasian males, as Mr. Darwin insisted! :)

You didn't look at the link I sent to my academic conference.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
As @Kangaroo Feathers already pointed out, Hitler's and Stalin's mis-understanding of Darwin is irrelevant. Darwin was correct, and evolution is a fact. However, let's hypothetically suppose your utterly absurd idea is true (even though it almost certainly isn't). Even *if* the belief in evolution could be demonstrated to lead to violent, psychopathic behavior, the fact that species evolved would still be true.

Hey!

I’m a firm Darwinist! Black and women are inferior to Caucasian males, as Mr. Darwin insisted! :)
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Doesn't look like your source supports this claim of a link between Hitler and Darwin. And I glanced over it. The author basically says the idea is bullox.

Wait just a minute!

I’m a firm Darwinist! Blacks and women are inferior to Caucasian males, as Mr. Darwin insisted! :)
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I’m a firm Darwinist! Blacks and women are inferior to Caucasian males, as Mr. Darwin insisted! :)
Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding of how science works by not realize that lots of things from around Darwin's time have been found to be wrong, but that's not a problem for science because it gets better as we learn what doesn't work. We've shed many ideas of Freud, but nevertheless a few of his ideas are foundational and haven't went anywhere.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Darwin was a British white guy in the 19th century. Of course he was somewhat racist and sexist, although I think you'll find he was actually less prejudiced than average. In any case, none of that disqualifies anything he said about evolution.

Darwin's own statements, "They will find X over time," disqualify most everything he said about evolution!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding of how science works by not realize that lots of things from around Darwin's time have been found to be wrong, but that's not a problem for science because it gets better as we learn what doesn't work. We've shed many ideas of Freud, but nevertheless a few of his ideas are foundational and haven't went anywhere.

See my replies to others on this thread regarding Darwin's opinions.

Which ideas of Freud are foundational?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Darwin's own statements, "They will find X over time," disqualify most everything he said about evolution!
Except they have found x over time. Not everything 100%, but Einstein didn't have Relativity 100% ironed out perfect but he got it so close that it's predictions are accurate enough that it became a foundation of modern physics.
Which ideas of Freud are foundational?
The subconscious mind is one of the big ones.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Except they have found x over time. Not everything 100%, but Einstein didn't have Relativity 100% ironed out perfect but he got it so close that it's predictions are accurate enough that it became a foundation of modern physics.

The subconscious mind is one of the big ones.

Please list all the X here, since you are an expert in evolution and not taking others' word for what you trust in:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
images
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I'm offended, since I’m a firm Darwinist! Black and women are inferior to Caucasian males, as Mr. Darwin insisted! :)
You didn't look at the link I sent to my academic conference.


So cool how you totally ignored the fact that you presented a source that actually 100% DESTROYED your dopey Darwin=Hitler trope/lie!

How pathetic!

For those that did not see the hilarity:



I categorically reject anything by Weikart due to many instances of his shoddy scholarship:

"Weikart is best known for his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany.[24][25] The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, funded the book's research.[26] The academic community has been widely critical of the book.[4][13] Regarding the thesis of Weikart's book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards wrote that Hitler was not a Darwinian and criticized Weikart for trying to undermine evolution.[27] Richards said that there was no evidence that Hitler read Darwin, and that some influencers of Nazism such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were opposed to evolution.[27]"

But I do thank you for linking the Roberts article, for it would appear that you did not read it, for it concludes, any emphases mine:


"Countless conservative religious and political tracts have attempted to undermine
Darwinian evolutionary theory by arguing that it had been endorsed by Hitler
and led to
the biological ideas responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. These dogmatically driven
accounts have been abetted by more reputable scholars who have written books with
titles like From Darwin to Hitler [was that not written by your hero, Weikart the righty propagandist?] . Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s great German disciple, is presumed to have virtually packed his sidecar with Darwinian theory and monistic philosophy and delivered their toxic message directly to Berchtesgaden or at least,individuals like Daniel Gasman, Stephen Jay
Gould, and Larry Arnhardt have so argued. Many more scholars are ready to apply the casual, but nonetheless, telling sobriquet to Hitler of "social Darwinian.” In this essay I have maintained these assumptions simply cannot be sustained after a careful
examination of the evidence.

To be considered a Darwinian at least three propositions would have to be
endorsed: that the human races exhibit a hierarchy of more advanced and less
advanced peoples; that the transmutation of species has occurred over long
stretches of time and that human beings have descended from ape -like ancestors; and that
natural selection — as Darwin understood it — is the principle means by which
transmutation occurs. Hitler and the Nazi biologists I have considered certainly claimed
a hierarchy of races, but that idea far antedated the publication of Darwin’s theory and
was hardly unique to it.
There is no evidence linking Hitler’s presumption of such a
hierarchy and Darwin’s conception
. Moreover, Hitler explicitly denied the descent of
species, utterly rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape - like predecessors. And most of the Nazi scientists I have cited likewise opposed that aspect of Darwin’s theory. Hitler did speak of the “struggle for existence,” but likely derived that language from his friend and supporter Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an avowed anti-Darwinian. Moreover, by Hitler’s own testimony, his anti-Semitism had political, not scientific or biological roots; there is no evidence that he had any special feeling for these scientific questions. And in any case, remote and abstract scientific conceptions can hardly provide the motivation for extreme political acts and desperate measures.
Among Nazi biologists, at least those publishing in an official organ of the Party,
Mendelian genetics and de Vriesian mutation theory were favored, both vying at the
beginning of the twentieth century to replace Darwinian theory. Moreover, the
perceived mechanistic character of Darwinism stood in opposition to the more vitalistic
conceptions of Nazi biologists and that of Hitler — or at least vitalism accords with the
drift of his thought about race. Finally, though his own religious views remain uncertain, Hitler often enough claimed religious justification for racial attitudes, assuming thereby the kind of theism usually pitted against Darwinian theory.
If “Social Darwinian” is a concept with definite meaning, it would have to refer to
individuals who apply evolutionary theory to human beings in social settings.
There is little difficulty, then, in denominating Herbert Spencer or Ernst Haeckel a social
Darwinian. With that understanding, Darwin himself also would have to be so called.
But how could one possibly ascribe that term to Hitler, who rejected evolutionary
theory?
Only in the very loosest sense, when the phrase has no relationship to the
theory of Charles Darwin, might it be used for Hitler.
In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences,neglecting altogether more straight -forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence.
Yet, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay, there is an obvious sense in which my
own claims must be moot. Even if Hitler could recite the Origin of Speciesby heart and referred to Darwin as his scientific hero, that would not have the slightest bearing on the validity of Darwinian theory or the moral standing of its author.
The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay its title is a very loud and unequivocal No!


So, yes, I accept your own reference as proof that Hitler was not a Darwinian or follower of Darwin, and thank you for enlightening me on yet another act of desperation and dishonesty undertaken by MANY creationist and right-wing extremist religionists in their sad, pathetic efforts to employ fallacious and dishonest methods to try to prop up their own failing ideology.

Thank you again @BilliardsBall for making so clear an admission. Very brave of you to have undermined and dare I say, debunked one of your own mantras.




Ah, yes, so that totally proves that Stalin did what he did in Darwin's name. Excellent scholarship.

Please tell me that this 'academic conference' you are chairing will not be on any of the topics you broach on this forum?​


Classic!
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Whenever there’s a mass shooting, you can count on Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to say the worst thing imaginable. Last May, after an incident, he blamed abortion and video games and unarmed teachers and too many entrances in schools and a lack of forced Christianity. In 2016, just after the Pulse nightclub massacre, he tweeted a Bible verse that said “A man reaps what he sows.” (He later deleted that tweet without apology or explanation.)

Now he’s doing the same thing about the El Paso shooting

Appearing on Fox & Friends, this morning Patrick got plenty of attention for blaming video games… even though the shooter made it clear he was following through on Donald Trump‘s anti-Hispanic rhetoric. But that’s not all he said.

He also said one of the causes was that kids no longer pray in schools.

… I look at, on Sunday morning, when most of your viewers right now, half of the country, are getting ready to go to church, and yet tomorrow, we won’t let our kids even pray in our schools…
He’s lying. (He’s a conservative Christian, so it comes with the territory.)

Besides the fact that it’s still summer vacation for most kids, so they wouldn’t be praying in school anyway, he’s flat-out wrong. Kids have always been allowed to pray in school. No atheist has ever tried to take that right away from them.

What Patrick presumably means to say is that school shootings are the result of Christianity not being forced upon all students — as if school shootings are the fault of Jews, Muslims, and atheists, and not a combination of right-wing bigotry mixed with easy access to weapons of war. Pushing Christianity in public school, in direct violation of those words that come before the Second Amendment, wouldn’t solve a damn thing. Saying meaningless words to an imaginary being won’t fix our gun problems.

Remember: There are far fewer religious people in other nations, and no one sees the level of gun violence that we do.
source
.

I went to school in the 50's and 60's. We didn't pray in school,,,,,an nobody was shot....EVER.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Whenever there’s a mass shooting, you can count on Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to say the worst thing imaginable. Last May, after an incident, he blamed abortion and video games and unarmed teachers and too many entrances in schools and a lack of forced Christianity. In 2016, just after the Pulse nightclub massacre, he tweeted a Bible verse that said “A man reaps what he sows.” (He later deleted that tweet without apology or explanation.)

Now he’s doing the same thing about the El Paso shooting

Appearing on Fox & Friends, this morning Patrick got plenty of attention for blaming video games… even though the shooter made it clear he was following through on Donald Trump‘s anti-Hispanic rhetoric. But that’s not all he said.

He also said one of the causes was that kids no longer pray in schools.

… I look at, on Sunday morning, when most of your viewers right now, half of the country, are getting ready to go to church, and yet tomorrow, we won’t let our kids even pray in our schools…
He’s lying. (He’s a conservative Christian, so it comes with the territory.)

Besides the fact that it’s still summer vacation for most kids, so they wouldn’t be praying in school anyway, he’s flat-out wrong. Kids have always been allowed to pray in school. No atheist has ever tried to take that right away from them.

What Patrick presumably means to say is that school shootings are the result of Christianity not being forced upon all students — as if school shootings are the fault of Jews, Muslims, and atheists, and not a combination of right-wing bigotry mixed with easy access to weapons of war. Pushing Christianity in public school, in direct violation of those words that come before the Second Amendment, wouldn’t solve a damn thing. Saying meaningless words to an imaginary being won’t fix our gun problems.

Remember: There are far fewer religious people in other nations, and no one sees the level of gun violence that we do.
source
.

We're slowly turning Democratic here in Texas....just wait, the madness is almost over.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Doesn't look like your source supports this claim of a link between Hitler and Darwin. And I glanced over it. The author basically says the idea is bullox.
So one has to wonder why it was presented - was it shoddy scholarship on BB's part? Laziness? Or was he hoping nobody would bother reading it?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member

Reviews of Weikart's garbage political pap:


Negative evaluations by academic reviewers are critical of the book citing Weikart's selective use of primary sources and ignoring a range of developments that shaped Nazi ideology.[4] In 2004, Sander Gliboff, professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University, criticized the work writing that "It is dismaying to see such opinions being passed off as results of scholarly research."[16] In 2005, Andrew Zimmerman, a professor of German history, reviewed it in the American Historical Review, writing "Weikart presents an image of Darwinism at once both too narrow and too broad."[17] Zimmerman wrote:

The German Darwinians who are the focus of the book appear only as advocates of eugenics, racism, and imperialism, although presumably these policies were informed by a broader intellectual project. At the same time, German anthropologists, who opposed Darwinism before the turn of the century (as a doctrine possessing no more empirical foundation than revealed religion does), are lumped with Darwinists, since these anthropologists also supported imperialism and racist hierarchies.[17]​


Weikart replied to Zimmerman's criticism with a letter to the editor[18] to which Zimmerman offered a rebuttal saying Weikart's work "is anachronistic, projecting present‐day theocratic agendas onto the history of science in Imperial Germany."[19]

Nils Roll-Hansen, historian and philosopher of 19th and 20th century biology at University of Oslo, also reviewed the work in 2005 and was critical of it in a review published by Isis calling it "selective" and containing "insufficient attention to historical change—leaving out political, social, and economic factors as well as the role of new knowledge in genetics-make his overall argument unconvincing."[20] Jonathan Judaken, professor of History at University of Memphis, wrote that while it is a "significant study," he "fails to follow the rich nuances of the discourse/practices and institutions that have preoccupied the contemporary generation of intellectual historians, who have paid attention to the continuities and ruptures within systems of thought. So his presentation of racism, for example, reiterates a rationale that does not stand up to the critical scrutiny of intellectual history."[21] Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote "Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism."[22][23][24]

Also in 2005, science historian Paul Lawrence Farber wrote in the Journal of the History of Biology that "Like other attempts to tar Darwin with all of the problems of modernity, Weikart's suffers from conceptual flaws that detract from his book, which contains some interesting material on the German eugenics movement, popular Darwinism in Germany, and German evolutionary ethics."[25] He concluded "Weikart's book, unfortunately, is likely to spawn more urban myths about Darwin that will have to be addressed."[25]

In 2006, Robert J. Richards, historian of Darwin and eugenics at University of Chicago, wrote "It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis."[26] Richards more pointedly concluded "Hitler was not a Darwinian" and "calls this all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution."[27] Richards explained, "There's not the slightest shred of evidence that Hitler read Darwin," and "Some of the biggest influences on Hitler's anti-Semitism were opposed to evolution, such as British writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose racial theory became incorporated into Nazi doctrine."[27]....

In 2006, Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of German history at the University of Louisville, reviewed Weikart's book for The Journal of Modern History.[30] She explained that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian."[30] Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since they predate evolutionary theory. Allen concluded:

....
In 2007, Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies and founder of Iowa State University's Atheist and Agnostic Society,[31] wrote an essay for the anti-Creationism site Talk.reason with the purpose of "exposing the historical flaws found in the work of Weikart" and argued "that the defense of genocide, infanticide and "eugenics" by creationists actually has a very venerable and lengthy tradition that precedes Darwin."[32] In a May 2008 debate with Weikart, Avalos criticized Weikart's quoting of Darwin.[33] Weikart states in his book:[SO THAT IS WHERE THAT LIE CAME FROM!!! WEIKART BLOWS!!]

Darwin clearly believed that the struggle for existence among humans would result in racial extermination. In Descent of Man he asserted, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."[34]​

[35][36][37][38][39]

Avalos said that the quote is often "misrepresented" in creationist literature, and that Darwin was reporting and criticizing the extermination of people at a time of colonial expansion, rather than promoting it.[33] Darwin's passage, in full context, reads:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[40]​

In 2009, historian Peter J. Bowler of Queen's University wrote in Notes and Records of the Royal Society that Weikart's book reflects a "simple blame game in which (for example) Darwin and Haeckel are accused of paving the way for Nazism," and criticized him and others for associating Darwin "with distasteful social policies" using a "remarkably simple-minded approach".[11]

...
Besides criticisms from historians, Weikart was criticized by Jeff Schloss, professor at Westmont College and former Discovery Institute fellow, in the Christian American Scientific Affiliation's publication regarding the Expelled film. Schloss wrote that the "ideas that are attributed to Darwin (such as natural selection makes might right in social policy) were actually not advocated but repudiated by Darwin and his immediate colleagues."​
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
The claim that "kids aren't allowed to pray in school" is one of the most pervasive myths among conservatives. No matter how many times it's pointed out that students can pray, bring their Bibles, read their Bibles, form Bible study groups, etc., conservative Christians just will not stop repeating this falsehood.

I suspect it's because their real agenda is to return to the days when schools told students "It's time to pray, and here's how to do it and what to say". IOW, theocracy.
 
Top