BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I find it fantastic that you are still able to 'show your face' around here with such mendacity given the fact that you have received such evidence multiple times already, including in this very thread (though you seem to have moved the goal posts - such is the malice in the creationist's heart):
And let us end with a reminder that all of your hemming and hawing and re-defining and re-iteration and re-assertion and burden shifting and pedanatery will not save this, your worst, most-failed "argument", a well poisoning fallacy on its best day, desperate mendacity on its worst, and an utter failure- as shown by your own unwitting hand:
↑I categorically reject anything by Weikart due to many instances of his shoddy scholarship:
Hitler and Darwin: http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf and
From Darwin to Hitler Quotes by Richard Weikart
"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?] ....” In this essay I have maintained these assumptions simply cannot be sustained after a careful examination of the evidence..... 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. ...Your issues are 1. your refusal to admit to obvious errors (hubris; pride), 2. your reliance on religio-political punditry rather than reason and facts (gullibility; ignorance) , 3. your ideological blindness (self-righteousness/pride).
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 Species by 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!
Stand by your error all you want. Sensible people see the truth.
Hey - remember that time that, in your desperation/ignorance, you tried to claim that I am a hypocrite because I am against slavery (even though your God is all for it) and I eat eggs? That was funny - funny in that it shows how desperate religionists are to rescue their tribal beliefs from the obvious wickedness and moral relativism they espouse.
I appreciate the intensity and depth of your epexegetical orgasm above, but you seem hell-bent (pun not intended) on defending Hitler. Why?